1997 (10) TMI 370 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment period and order of assessment.
2. Barred by time due to delay in assessment.
3. Compliance with form No. XVIII for assessment order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, challenged an order of assessment for the period from 1st January, 1975 to 31st December, 1975. The initial assessment order was passed on 30th September, 1980, and a revision was allowed on 21st December, 1981, directing a fresh assessment order to be passed.

2. The petitioner contended that the assessment was time-barred as it exceeded the five-year limitation period. Respondent No. 1 argued that since the assessment order was within the prescribed period, the proceedings were not time-barred. The petitioner sought to quash this part of the order.

3. During the assessment proceedings, a transfer request was made, leading to the case being transferred to another officer. The petitioner argued that the original assessment order did not comply with form No. XVIII as required by the Rules. The petitioner claimed that the order was not in the prescribed form and lacked mention in the order-sheet, making it invalid. However, the court found that substantial compliance with form No. XVIII was established, and the use of the word "shall" in the rule did not render the order void.

4. The court examined the requirements of form No. XVIII and concluded that even if not all requirements were applicable, substantial compliance was sufficient. The court determined that the order of assessment, despite not strictly adhering to form No. XVIII, was not void. The court clarified the distinction between mandatory and directory provisions, emphasizing substantial compliance.

5. Ultimately, the court held that the assessment order dated 30th September, 1980 was valid as it fell within the limitation period, and there was no error in the decision of respondent No. 2. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment, and the court refrained from commenting on the case's merits.

6. The petition was dismissed, with no costs imposed on the petitioner, and any security amount was to be refunded. The court found no merit in the petition and upheld the validity of the assessment order.

*Petition dismissed.*