9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (12) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the assessee on the basis of the assessment year is valid on the ground that he had not carried on business for all twelve months during the year 1953-54? The respondent, Messrs Asha Ram Sushil Chandra, is a dealer in kirana and medicines at Baraut in the district of Meerut. It commenced its business on 6th November, 1953. The Sales Tax Officer assessed it for the assessment year 1953-54 in accordance with the provisions of section 18(3) of the aforesaid Act. For the assessment year 1954-55, the Sales Tax Officer made an assessment order on 30th November, 1955, assessing the respondent on the turnover of the assessment year. The taxable turnover was determined at Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erroneous. We have considered the matter and are inclined to accept his contention. It is necessary for the purpose of appreciating his contention to consider the statutory provisions as they stood at the relevant time. Section 3, sub-section (1) of the Act charges a dealer to sales tax on his turnover of the previous year, and sub-section (2) empowers the State Government to prescribe that the dealer could, instead of paying tax on the turnover of the previous year, pay the same on the turnover of the assessment year. Section 7, sub-section (1), requires the dealer to submit a return or returns of his turnover of the previous year or the assessment year. And rule 39(1) provides: "Any dealer may elect to submit returns of his turnover of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in section 2(j)(ii), during the whole of which the business could have been carried on. It was to meet this situation that the proviso to rule 39(1) was framed. There is no inconsistency between the provisions of the statute and the proviso to rule 39(1). The latter operates in a field not occupied by any of the relevant statutory provisions, and was framed to provide for circumstances for which there was no provision elsewhere. We, therefore, hold that the proviso to rule 39(1) is not ultra vires on the ground on which it has been struck down by the judge (Revisions). Accordingly, our answer to both limbs of the first question is in the affirmative. The second question is merely an amplification of the first. We answer that also in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
