1984 (4) TMI 252 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of time-limit under section 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 for assessment of unregistered dealers.
2. Validity of assessment under section 14(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 for a specific period.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay addressed a reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, concerning the interpretation of time-limits and validity of assessments for unregistered dealers. The first issue involved whether the 5-year time-limit under section 15 of the Act applied to the assessment of unregistered dealers for completed assessment years and if assessments for periods less than a year could only be done under section 14(6). The second issue questioned the legality of an assessment made under section 14(6) for the period from April 1, 1958, to December 31, 1959. The Court noted an error in the period mentioned in the second issue and corrected it. The factual background revealed that a dealer was found liable to be registered and pay tax under the Act after an inspection by tax authorities, leading to an assessment under section 14(6) for the specified period. Despite appeals and revisions, the Sales Tax Tribunal deemed the assessment time-barred under section 15, leading to the reference.

The Court relied on a Supreme Court decision in State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramjibhai Danabhai [1979] to conclude that section 14(6) of the Act applied to unregistered dealers, while section 15 set a 5-year time-limit for assessments. The Supreme Court ruling clarified that section 33(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and section 14(6) of the Act were constitutionally valid and applied to unregistered dealers evading tax lawfully. It distinguished between unregistered and registered dealers for assessment purposes, stating that section 33(6) dealt with specific tax evaders, while section 35 addressed general cases of escaped or under-assessed tax. The judgment highlighted that there was no time-limit specified in section 14(6) of the Act, unlike section 15, making the assessment valid even if the notice was issued beyond 5 years.

Consequently, the Court answered both referred questions in the negative, favoring the tax department and rejecting the dealer's claims. It emphasized that as section 14(6) governed the case, the completeness of the assessment year was immaterial. The Court ordered the respondent to bear the costs of the reference, concluding the judgment on the interpretation of time-limits and validity of assessments under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.