1979 (5) TMI 137 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.
2. Limitation period for issuing a notice under section 12 of the Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the assessing authority to issue a fresh notice for reassessment.
4. Applicability of the appellate and revisional authority's directions.
5. Availability and necessity of exhausting alternative remedies.
6. Delay in filing the writ petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Notice Issued Under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act:
The petitioner, M/s. Jaipur Udyog Ltd., was initially assessed to tax for the year 1955-56, and the Sales Tax Officer excluded a sum representing the price of cement exported outside Rajasthan from the taxable turnover. On 24th February 1959, the assessing authority issued a notice under section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, claiming that the turnover had escaped assessment. However, this notice was later deemed invalid by the Board of Revenue, which held that no valid notice was issued, thereby invalidating the proceedings.

2. Limitation Period for Issuing a Notice Under Section 12 of the Act:
The primary contention was that the notice dated 6th May 1965 was issued beyond the statutory limitation period of eight years from the end of the relevant assessment year, which expired on 31st March 1964. The court found that the notice was indeed issued beyond this period, making it invalid.

3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority to Issue a Fresh Notice for Reassessment:
The court emphasized that the service of a valid notice is a condition precedent for reassessment under section 12. Since the earlier notice was invalid, the entire proceedings were vitiated. The fresh notice issued on 6th May 1965 could not be considered a continuation of the earlier invalid notice, and thus, the assessing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue it.

4. Applicability of the Appellate and Revisional Authority's Directions:
The court examined whether the fresh notice could be justified based on the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)'s directions. It concluded that appellate or revisional authorities could not confer jurisdiction on the assessing authority to issue a notice if the limitation period had expired. The court cited several precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, supporting this view.

5. Availability and Necessity of Exhausting Alternative Remedies:
The court addressed the argument that the petitioner should have exhausted statutory remedies before approaching the High Court. It referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, which held that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court from issuing a writ if an authority acts without jurisdiction. Given that the notice was per se invalid, the court found it appropriate to grant relief through a writ petition to prevent unnecessary harassment.

6. Delay in Filing the Writ Petition:
The court considered the delay in filing the writ petition, noting that the petitioner had sufficiently explained the delay, including the stay of reassessment proceedings by the Board of Revenue and the lack of further action by the respondent. The court decided not to refuse relief on the ground of delay, given the circumstances.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the notice dated 6th May 1965, and prohibited the respondent from taking any reassessment action based on the invalid notice. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

← Previous Next →