1966 (2) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aving its principal place of business at Bangalore. It is not a registered dealer in the Kerala State. For the year 1957-58, a first notice dated 3rd March, 1960, was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. This was followed by a notice dated 3rd June, 1960, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why it should not be prosecuted for non-registration. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bit P-4. 2.. In support of the prayer to quash exhibits P-3 and P-4, it was urged that as the notices in respect of the year 1957-58 were issued to the petitioner on 3rd March, 1960, and 3rd June, 1960, the proceedings which ultimately resulted in the assessment of the petitioner amounted to a case of ''escaped assessment" and were barred by reason of the provisions of rule 33 of the General Sal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er exhibit P-3 was beyond the time-limit specified in the above rule, the proceedings are illegal and liable to be quashed. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur[1963] 14 S.T.C. 976., there was no controversy before me that the proceedings taken to assess the petitioner by exhibit P-1 and the subsequent orders .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e orders of the appellate and revisional authorities. It appears to me that it is no longer open to the learned Government Pleader to construe rule 33 as contended by him, in view of the two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in State of Orissa v. Debaki Debi and Others[1964] 15 S.T.C. 153; A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1413. and Jaipuria Brothers Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others[1965] 16 S.T. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. It is unnecessary to deal with the other contention advanced by the petitioner's counsel, namely that in any event, the revenue recovery proceedings taken in this case are without jurisdiction as the revenue recovey certificates have been issued in favour of the Revenue Recovery Officer, Mysore, and that the same could validly be issued only in favour of the Collector. In view of my conclusion .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X