Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1962 (7) TMI 31

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 953, by an order of 18th August, 1953. On 18th November, 1953, Narain Singh as karta of firm Manobar Singh Kartar Singh made an application for the change of the name of that firm into Narain Singh Mohinder Singh. This application was allowed and the certificate of registration was amended to accord with the change in the name of the firm. On 3rd July, 1954, firm Narain Singh Mohinder Singh was assessed to sales tax for the period between 1st April, 1953, and 31st March, 1954. This would seem to cover some months for which assessment had already been made in the order of 18th August, 1953, but that is not a matter of controversy in this reference. On 28th March, 1957, the Commissioner of Excise and Taxation, of his own motion under sub- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... und by the provisions of section 11-A when proceeding to reassess the assessee-firm; (2) Whether the issue of notice on 28th March, 1957, taking suo motu action is sufficient to save limitation prescribed under section 11-A of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948; and (3) Whether the assessment should have been completed on 31st March, 1957, which is within three years of the end of the year (1st April, 1953 to 31st March, 1954), or only a notice issued within the period of three years would save the limitation?" The learned Financial Commissioner has accordingly made reference of these questions to this Court by his order of 27th June, 1961. In clause (a) of section 2 of the Act the "Assessing Authority" is defined to mean any p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tax payable on the turnover which has been under-assessed or has escaped assessment." It is also immediately clear that this provision gives the power of reassessment only to the Assessing Authority and apparently to no other authority. In so far as the first question is concerned it is obvious that the provisions of section 11-A of the Act have no bearing on the revisional powers of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Act for what the Commissioner does in exercising revisional powers is to satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety of the record of any proceedings before or disposed of by the Assessing Authority or the Appellate Authority as the case may be, and he does not take proceedings for reassessment. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of exercising his revisional powers under sub-section (1) of that section. Similarly the third question does not arise because as section 11-A of the Act has no bearing on the revisional powers of the Commissioner under section 21(1) of the Act, so the question of completion of the assessment within three years of the year ending on 31st March, 1954, does not arise, nor does the question, whether issue of such a notice within that period saves limitation, arise. There is no limitation for the issue of such a notice. Such a notice is merely a notice intimating motion of the Commissioner to exercise his powers of revision under section 21(1) of the Act and is not a notice for assessment or reassessment. So even this question really in the cir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ear from the date of the assessment and in that case he had acted after the expiry of that period. In the present case the Assessing Authority has made no move and therefore the case is no analogy that helps the assessee-firm in this reference. The learned counsel for the assessee-firm has then referred to Commissioner of Income-tax v. Edulji F.E. Dinshaw [1943] 11 I.T.R. 340. and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mangaldas Motilal Co.[1944] 12 I.T.R. 89., in which the learned judges have held that under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Commissioner while exercising powers of revision under section 33 has no power to enhance the tax assessed though he may direct the Income-tax Officer to take action under section 34 of that Act within the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates