9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (11) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uiry on 6th September, 1955, he finally assessed the petitioners under a single order. He rejected the claim of the petitioners to the aforesaid turnover as not being liable to tax and included it in the petitioners' turnover and assessed it. On appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commercial Tax Officer and dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised before us four contentions, which we shall proceed to consider seriatim. The first argument of the learned counsel is that the Commercial Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make the assessment on 6th September, 1955, for the year 1953-54. In other words, he says that, under the Act and the rules framed thereunder, the assessment for one year should be made only during the succeeding year. As this argument turns upon the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, it will be convenient at this stage to read the relevant provisions. "THE MADRAS GENERAL SALES TAX ACT. Section 3.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act(a) every dealer shall pay for each year a tax on his total turnover for such year. Section 9.-(1) Every dealer whose turnover is ten thousand rupees or more in a year shall submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall, after making such enquiry as he considers necessary, and after giving the dealer an opportunity as prescribed in rule 9 of proving the correctness and completeness of his return, where one has been submitted; determine the turnover to the best of his judgment and provisionally assess the tax and taxes payable for the month and shall serve upon the dealer a notice in Form B-1 and the dealer shall pay the sum demanded at the time and in the manner specified in the notice. (5) After the close of the year in which the provisional assessment as laid down in sub-rule (3) has been made, the assessing authority shall, after such scrutiny of the accounts and after such enquiry as he considers necessary, satisfy himself that the returns filed are correct and complete, and finally assess under a single order on the basis of the returns, the tax or taxes payable under any of the sections 3, 5 or 8-B(2) or under any notifications issued under section 6(1) for the preceding year. (6) If the final assessment made under sub-rule (5) is greater than the provisional assessment made under sub-rule (3) the assessing authority shall serve upon the dealer a notice in Form B and the dealer shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e returns for the preceding year. The rule no doubt contemplates and indeed expects that the assessment for the preceding year should ordinarily be made in the succeeding year. But, we cannot imply therefrom an immutable period of limitation excluding the jurisdiction of the assessing authority to finalise the assessment after the close of the succeeding year. Neither section 3, the charging section, nor section 9, which prescribes the procedure to be followed by the assessing authority, expressly or by necessary implication lays down a period of limitation or excludes the jurisdiction of the assessing authority to finalise the assessment after the succeeding year. Though the rule is ill-drafted and lends scope for the argument advanced before us, we could not read that rule in the manner suggested. It prescribed only a procedure for finally assessing under a single order, and it cannot be read as delimiting the period within which proceedings duly initiated under the rules should be terminated. This view is to some extent supported by the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in State of Madras v. Ibrahim Kunhi[1956] 7 S.T.C. 617. There, the assessee did not file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel to raise the same. In T.R.C. No. 36 of 1956*, a Full Bench of this Court held that, as Government has not complied with the condition of prepublication of the Rules, rule 13 as amended in 1947, 1951 and 1953 is invalid. But the fact that the amendment is invalid does not help the petitioner as the assessment must be deemed to have been made under rule 13 in its original form. Under rule 13 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules as unamended, there was no provisional monthly assessment but the monthly assessments are the final assessments. If so, the turnover representing the goods sold by the petitioners to the Mysore Starch Manufacturing Company escaped assessment. Rule 17 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules provides for escaped assessment. It reads: "(1) If for any reason the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer or licensee has escaped assessment to the tax in any year or if the licence fee has escaped levy in any year, the assessing authority or licensing authority, as the case may be, subject to the provisions in sub-rule (1)(a) may at any time within three years next succeeding that to which the tax or the licence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
