9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (3) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petition. The writ petition was eventually dismissed by the High Court on 18th February, 1959. The Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, thereupon issued a notice dated 10th June, 1959, to the assessee as follows: "In this office note dated 8th March, 1957 it was proposed to revise the assessment for the year 1953-54 adding a turnover of Rs. 1,09,413-12-0 to the turnover previously assessed. The notice was served on you on 9th March, 1957. You filed a writ petition against the above in the High Court in W.P. No. 170 of 1957 which was dismissed. You are therefore requested to file your objections if any, to the proposed revision before me on 20th June. 1959. at 11.00 A.M. in My office at Visakhapatnam, failing which the revision will be made as proposed. The objections were filed and considered by the assessing authority, and he by his order dated 31st July. 1959, revised the assessment for the year 1953-54, and assessed the dealer on an escaped turnover of Rs. 1,08,413-12-0 in addition to the turnover already determined, and to an additional tax of Rs. 1,693-15-6. The matter was carried in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada, in Appeal No. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted by the High Court in any case, or by reason of the fact that an appeal or other proceeding is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court involving a question of law having a direct bearing on the assessment in question, the period during which the stay order was in force or such appeal or proceeding was pending shall be excluded in computing the period of four years specified in this section for the purpose of making the assessment." This Act came into force on 23rd March, 1958. and section 1(2) of that Act has enumerated the amendments which shall be deemed to have come into force on 15th June, 1957, when the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act came into force, and the amendment to section 14(5) is not one amongst them. Sri Venkatappaiah Sastry, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, as it originally stood, or as subsequently amended was not given retrospective effect even by the amending Act III of 1958. He relied on section 41(1) proviso of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act which is as follows: "Provided that such repeal shall not affect the previous operation of the said Acts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation for any suit or application for the execution of a decree would not apply to a special enactment, like the Madras General Sales Tax Act or the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, which has provided its own periods of limitation. In other words, the contention of the learned Advocate is that the section applies only to cases for which the period of limitation has been provided by the First Schedule to the limitation Act. For this contention, he sought the assistance of the decision in Subbarayan v. Natarajan (1922) I.L.R. 45 Mad. 785., where a Bench of the Madras High Court ruled that the period of twelve years mentioned in section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of the decree is not a period of Limitation in the strict sense, and consequently section 15(1) of the Limitation Act was not applicable to it. He also pressed into service another Bench decision, Tandavamurti v. DurgambaA.I.R. 1928 Mad. 1154., to a similar effect, that section 15 of the Limitation Act applies only to the periods prescribed in the schedule to that Act and does not apply to the period of limitation prescribed by section 48, Civil Procedure Code, following the decision in Subbarayan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad Hussain Nachiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras(1956) 2 M.L.J. 139; 29 I.T.R. 848., and Ramanathan Chettiar v. Kandappa Gounden(1950) 2 M.L.J. 624. A Bench of this Court followed that decision (Syed Mohammed Ravoother v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tirukoilur(3)) in Padarthi Venkateswara Rao v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kakinada[1959] 10 S.T.C. 162. On behalf of the Court, my learned brother, Satyanarayana Raju, J., dealing with the effect of the amendment in 1953 to rule 17 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules of 1939, whereby a period of three years was substituted for two years held that the provision of the amended rule applied to a cause of action which arose before the amendment, and where the period of limitation prescribed by law was enlarged before the right of the assessing authority was barred, it was the amended law that determined the liability of the assessee. In that case, the assessment years were 1951-52 and 1952-53 and the revised assessments under rule 17 existing prior to 1953 could be made only before 31st March, 1954, and 31st March, 1955. But rule 17 was amended by G.O. No. 1635, Revenue, dated 11th June, 1953, raising the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 1999 of 1957. The order of assessment made on 12th March, 1955, had, therefore, not become final by 18th March, 1957, and that state of affairs continued till 18th February, 1959, when the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act came into force on 15th June, 1957 providing for a period of four years. It would be seen that the assessment proceedings were stayed for a period of one year and eleven months by reason of the stay order. Adding this period of one year and eleven months to the period of four years from 31st March, 1958, the period for revision is extended till 3rd March, 1960. In this case, the revised assessment was made on 31st July, 1959. We are, therefore, of the opinion that section 14(4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act applied to the case, and before the expiry of the period of four years from 31st March, 1954, the revised assessment was made, and it is therefore in time. We wish to add that the assessee who obtained an order of stay and prevented the assessing authority from making the revised assessment within the period of three years as it stood at that time, cannot be permitted to take advantage of the very same order and now contend that the revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his rights should become extinct rights which he was prevented from enforcing for a part at least of the period of twelve years." We respectfully follow these observations, and hold that the period during which the order of stay was in force should be excluded in calculating the period of four years provided for by section 14(4). In this view, the further contention that section 14(5) did not declare the previous law, and that it was not given retrospective effect need not be considered. Though we do not wish to express our final opinion on this matter. we hold that the amendment introduced by section 14(5) cannot necessarily be construed as meaning that that was not the law previously. Further, as was laid down in the case cited above, since the provisions relating to limitation are part of the procedural law, they should be given retrospective effect, in which view section 14(5) would also govern the case. For these reasons, we agree with the majority order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and hold that the order of revised assessment is not barred by limitation. No other question has been argued before us. The tax revision case fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
