1957 (2) TMI 94 - HC - Service Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Sections 19 and 19A of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947.
2. Validity of assessments without notices under Section 19 or 19A.
3. Jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Taxes to make assessments.
4. Waiver of procedural irregularities by the Assessee.

Detailed Analysis:

Compliance with Sections 19 and 19A of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947:
The primary issue was whether there was sufficient compliance with Sections 19 and 19A of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, in making the assessments. Section 19A was added by the Amending Act IV of 1951. The Assessee argued that no notices were issued under Section 19 or 19A, which were essential for the Superintendent of Taxes to assume jurisdiction. The Board of Sales Tax conceded that notice under Section 19A was necessary but considered the issue of notices under Section 17(4) as a mere irregularity.

Validity of Assessments without Notices under Section 19 or 19A:
The court examined whether the assessments were void ab initio for want of notice under Section 19A. Section 19A allows the Commissioner to serve a notice if turnover has escaped assessment within three years. The court found that the Superintendent of Taxes had not issued a notice under Section 19A, and instead, notices were issued under Section 17(4), which was not applicable as the Assessee had not submitted returns under Section 16(1).

Jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Taxes to Make Assessments:
The court held that the jurisdiction to assess does not necessarily depend upon the validity of the notice. Even if there is some defect in the notice, the jurisdiction of the Officer to assess will not be necessarily affected. The court emphasized that procedural sections should be construed to make the Act effective, and substantial compliance with Section 19A was sufficient.

Waiver of Procedural Irregularities by the Assessee:
The court noted that the Assessee had submitted returns in compliance with the notices under Section 17(4) without any protest. By doing so, the Assessee waived the right to object to the initiation of assessment proceedings. The court cited various precedents, including cases under the Indian Income Tax Act, to support the view that procedural irregularities could be waived by the Assessee.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that there was sufficient compliance with Section 19A of the Act, and the assessments were not void. The assessments could be modified accordingly. The court also noted that the confusion arose due to the failure of the Taxing Officer to follow the provisions of the law properly. Therefore, the Department was not entitled to costs. The reference was answered accordingly, with Haliram Deka, J. concurring.