9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (1) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efer to us two other questions which are mentioned by the Tribunal in its judgment in the application for reference. But the Tribunal refused to refer those questions on the ground that no question of law could be said to arise in respect of those questions out of the order of the Tribunal. Against this part of the Tribunal's order the assessee has filed an application under section 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, but that application has not been numbered and is clearly beyond limitation. The order of the Tribunal was made on 20th August, 1956, whereas the application made by the assessee is dated 11th December, 1956. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to consider that application and that application will have to be rejected. Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... radesh on the ground that the sales were made directly at Bombay. It was the case of the Bombay Sales Tax Authorities that these sales having escaped taxation at Nagpur and information having been received about them in Bombay, the Sales Tax Authorities made detailed enquiries and as a result the Sales Tax Officer assessed the assessee to sales tax here in respect of those transactions. Now, in the first instance, the assessee's contention was that he was not a "dealer" within the meaning of section 2(c) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, because though the goods were delivered in Bombay the contracts in respect of those deliveries were entered into at Nagpur and the agent in Bombay was no more than a clearing agent in delivering the goods conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen, the assessee submits, he cannot be taxed because the claim of the taxing authorities, so far as this is concerned, would be beyond limitation. Mr. Joshi also urged that in fact the notices, which were issued against the assessee on 14th March, 1953, were under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1952, and not under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946. We are not prepared to allow Mr. Joshi to raise that contention in this reference, because no such point was taken by the assessee in the lower courts. Now, section 11(5) states: "If upon information which has come into his possession, the Collector is satisfied that any dealer has been liable to pay tax under this Act in respect of any period but has failed to apply for registration the Collector s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub-section (2) of section 11" and thereafter may proceed to assess or re-assess the amount of tax from such dealer. Now, it is obvious that sub-section (5) of section 11 deals with the specific case in respect of any dealer who, though liable to pay tax under the Act in respect of any period, has failed to apply for registration and there can be no dispute that in this case prior to 1952 there was such a failure on the part of the assessee. The lower authorities held on the facts that the case of the assessee was governed by sub-section (5) of section 11 and we see no reason to take a different view. Besides, it seems from the wording of section 11A that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
