9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (5) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the assessable turnover of the petitioner a further sum of Rs. 56,279, which represented the price of chillies sold by the petitioner in Dindigul taluk of Madurai district. The events that transpired between the two assessments and which led up to the assessment on 20th March, 1956, have to be set out. On 29th October, 1954, the petitioner applied to the Deputy Controller of Exports for a licence to export chillies. In that application the petitioner stated that in 1952-53 he had sold chillies of the value of Rs. 56,279 at his place of business Nagayakottai in Dindigul taluk, and he claimed further that he had grown these chillies on his lands. The petitioner enclosed certificates from the village officers to prove his contention, that he had about 50 acres of land under his cultivation in the relevant period. That application of the petitioner was eventually rejected by the Deputy Controller on 12th April, 1955. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Dindigul, took proceedings to assess the petitioner to sales tax on the admitted sale turnover of the chillies in 1952-53. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer held that there was no proof that the chillies the petitioner admittedly s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, was set aside on the sole ground, that that officer had no jurisdiction to assess the petitioner who had his principal place of business at Ulundurpet. The petitioner claimed that he was not aware of the termination of the appeal when he presented his application on 18th April, 1956, to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a rule nisi on 24th April, 1956. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the validity of the order dated 20th March, 1956, mainly on two grounds: (1) the petitioner had been denied a real and effective opportunity to show cause against the revision of assessment and the inclusion of the disputed turnover of Rs. 56,279, and (2) the revision of assessment was barred by the relevant rule prescribing the period of limitation. It should be noted at the outset that the petitioner did not avail himself of the statutory remedy open to him to appeal to the Commercial Tax Officer, South Arcot, against the order dated 20th March, 1956. One of the grounds set out in the affidavit of the petitioner was that there were two orders of assessment, one by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Dindigul, and the other by the Deputy Commercial Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to a denial of a real and effective opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed revision of assessment. The controversy between the department and the petitioner at that stage lay within a narrow compass. The petitioner admitted the sale of chillies. The turnover of these sales was not in dispute, as the petitioner's figures, disclosed in his application to the Deputy Controller for Exports, were accepted by the department. The petitioner claimed that the turnover was exempt from taxation because he had produced the chillies on lands in which he had an interest either as owner or as lessee. Details of the lands he held he furnished in the memorandum of appeal he filed with the Commercial Tax Officer, Madurai. Those records were all available, including the documents filed by the petitioner with his memorandum of appeal. The petitioner made no attempt to substantiate his claim, either with reference to these records or with reference to any other records in his possession including his books of account. He certainly knew wherefrom came the chillies which he admittedly sold in 1952-53. The petitioner could have asked for an opportunity to examine the origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 1952-53. Had rule 17(1) not been amended, the assessment of escaped turnover would have had to be completed before 31st March, 1955. But before the expiry of that period the rule prescribing the period of limitation was amended, giving the assessing authority three years within which to assess any turnover that had escaped assessment. It was the three year period that should apply to the case of the petitioner. His contention that he had acquired a vested right to the two year period of limitation is untenable. In Muhamad Hussain Nachiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras(1956) 2 M.L.J. 139; 29 I.T.R. 848. , we pointed out that the principle to apply in such cases was the one laid down by another Division Bench of this Court in Ramanathan Chettiar v. Kandappa Gounder(1950) 2 M.L.J. 624., where the learned Chief Justice observed: "It is well settled that the law of limitation being procedural law its provisions operate retrospectively in the sense that they apply to causes of action which arose before their enactment and that it is equally well established that if a right to sue had become barred by the provisions of the Act then in force on the date of coming into force of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
