9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (9) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt they were not liable to pay any tax and no demand under Form B was issued to them. They had not collected any sales tax and therefore no demand notice was sent under Form B-2. The order of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer is dated 28th December, 1954. The Commercial Tax Officer, North Madras, exercised his powers of revision under section 12 of the Act suo motu and notice of these proceedings was given to the petitioner. The records were called for from the file of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and after hearing the objections of the petitioner, the revising authority fixed the total taxable turnover as Rs. 54,029-15-6. The order of the Commercial Tax Officer is dated 18th September, 1958. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, against the order of the Commercial Tax Officer in revision, but was unsuccessful. The Tribunal by its order dated 30th May, 1959, affirmed the decision of the Commercial Tax Officer. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner, challenging the correctness of the order of the Appellate Tribunal affirming the order of the Commercial Tax Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner rai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is quite clear that the limitation period cannot commence or begin to run from the very date of the order. It is not permissible to disregard the express words occurring in section 12(4), namely, "the date on which the order was communicated to the assessee", or the equally plain words in section 11(5), namely, "the date on which the order or proceeding to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant". It is interesting to note that the provisions of sections 12(4) and 12(5) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act are sharply in contrast with the provisions of section 33-A and section 33-B of the Indian Income-tax Act, which provide a revisional jurisdiction to the Commissioner of Income-tax. Section 33-A, quoting the relevant words prescribing limitation, is as follows: "Provided that the Commissioner shall not revise any order under this sub-section if.........(c) the order has been made more than one year previously." Section 33-B which empowers the Commissioner to revise the order of the Income-tax Officer prescribes the period of limitation in the following way: "No order shall be made under sub-section (1).........after the expiry of two years from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust have been communicated to the assessee within a reasonable time after the date of his order, namely, 28th December, 1954, that the assessee must be deemed to have got the order early in January, 1955, that the period of limitation would have commenced to run from January, 1955, and expired in January, 1958, and then consequently hold that the revision proceedings commenced on 26th February, 1958, were barred. We would prefer to go by the words of the statute, clear and unambiguous as they are, and hold that the proceedings of the Commercial Tax Officer have not been shown to have been conducted in transgression of the provisions of section 12 (4) of the Act. The next contention that is urged on behalf of the petitioner is, the order of assessment of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was incomplete and invalid as it was not communicated to the assessee-petitioner. We do not find any provision either in the statute or in the rules framed thereunder prescribing communication of orders of assessment to the assessee. Section 9 of the Act provides that if the assessing authority is satisfied that the return submitted by the dealer is correct and complete he shall assess the dealer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility upon the taxpayer. The Indian Income-tax Act is no exception in this respect........." But however wide the significance of the expression "assessment" may be, it is impossible to hold that an assessment is incomplete or invalid in the absence of the order of assessment being served upon the assessee. Once the competent authority makes an assessment under the Madras General Sales Tax Act after scrutinising the return submitted by the assessee, and after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of proving the correctness and completeness of any return submitted by him it is complete and valid. It is also final if it is not in any way modified, cancelled, or altered by the appellate or the revisional authorities prescribed under the Act. We have no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was not a valid order of assessment. Even if it can be assumed for any reason that there was no valid order of assessment at all by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer the revisional power of the Commercial Tax Officer under section 12(1) yet subsists and can be availed of by him suo motu. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
