9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (8) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to decide the preliminary objections which were argued on 1st March, 1962. For the relief just mentioned, it is necessary to state a few facts. The petitioner is a partner of the firm Rajab Ali Wali Mohammad. That firm is a registered dealer and carries on at Raipur the business of importing and selling motor tyres and tubes, kerosene oil, bicycles, parts and accessories. The Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Raipur, assessed the firm to tax in respect of sales made in the year 1952-53 on 23rd July, 1958, and in respect of those made in the year 1953-54 on 25th August, 1958. In regard to the second year, a penalty was imposed under section 10(3) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, with the approval of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 11-A or 22-B having been expired, those rights could not be affected by initiation of the proceedings under the Act. (c) As the notices issued and the gist of the orders communicated were uncertain and vague and further as there was no material in the report of the R.A.C. dated 9th October, 1961, to sustain the proceedings under section 39(2), the notices issued were illegal being in contravention of the mandatory requirements of the Act. (d) The respondent himself having imposed the penalty in the assessment order dated 25th August, 1958, had become a party to the order and as such he was not competent to revise his own order. (e) Even assuming but not admitting that the new Act was applicable, the proceedings were barred by time, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as passed: "This request is rejected because it is considered proper that there should be a consolidated decision after hearing full arguments in connection with the notice. Therefore, for the remaining arguments, time is given. The case is fixed for hearing on 21st April, 1962." Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved this Court for the several reliefs claimed by him in his petition. Since the petitioner now claims only one relief, we reserve our opinion about the other reliefs. 6.. In P.N. Films, Ltd. v. Union of India, a case under Article 226 of the Constitution, in which the question of jurisdiction was decided first as a preliminary point, their Lordships observed: "A preliminary point is one which if answered negatives either the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... questions. We may also mention that the Commissioner has given no reason for adopting that course. 8. The Government Advocate endeavoured to justify the order dated 1st March, 1962, as one made for hearing further arguments on the preliminary objections. In view of what is stated in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the return, it was pointed out to him that his submission was without any basis. The Government Advocate thereupon stated that a direction may be issued to the Commissioner to decide the preliminary objections. 9.. It is not that we have not formed our opinion on some of the questions raised in this petition. But we prefer to issue a direction to the Commissioner to decide the preliminary objections with expedition mainly because th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
