9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (5) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith respect to the building contract activities. They were, however, held liable to pay tax (a) on sale of bricks and (b) for certain purchases made, free of tax, on the strength of the registration certificate during the period in question. In the end the Sales Tax Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner-firm had paid Rs. 2,450.19 nP. in excess, which were refundable to them. A notice dated 10th January, 1958, was served on the petitioner-firm by the Sales Tax Officer under rule 64 of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, calling upon the petitionerfirm to show cause why the assessment order dated 30th April, 1957, be not reviewed in view of the Supreme Court decision in Mithan Lal v. State of Delhi[1958] 9 S.T.C. 417; A.I.R. 1958 S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade on the basis of the said rule is not legal or valid; (2) There are inherent limitations in the power of review conferred on the Sales Tax Officer under sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Act and a later decision of the Supreme Court cannot furnish any ground for review; and (3) Assessment for the first two quarters ending 30th June, 1955, and 30th September, 1955, is barred by limitation under section 11(2a) of the Act. So far as the first contention is concerned it is not necessary to consider the validity of rule 28 inasmuch as the impugned order shows that the petitioner-firm themselves voluntarily offered to take exemption at the rate of 30 per cent. as provided in rule 28. This offer appears to have been made because the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. It is in its nature a new trial of the issue previously tried between the parties, the cause of action being brought into court again for trial by a new petition. The proceeding in some respects resembles a writ of error, and also a new trial." Even in England the history of review shows that originally in Chancery Courts opportunity to correct decision was afforded by a petition to rehear. The matter was heard by the same Judge or another judge and rehearing was not limited to any particular ground. That would, however, be done only if the order or decision was not enrolled. If, on the other hand, the order or decision was sealed then it could be reviewed only on limited grounds of fresh evidence being found or error apparent on the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er had held, following the decision of the Chief Commissioner, that building contractors were not liable to sales tax. The Supreme Court having reversed that position, I think there were legitimate grounds to review the said order. In this view the second contention of the petitioner-firm must be repelled. There remains then the third contention of the petitioner-firm. The four years period provided in section 11(2a) is "from the end of the year in respect of which or part of which the assessment is made." Even if the taxable period be a quarter yet the period of limitation provided under section 11(2a) has to be calculated from the end of the relevant year. That being so, the assessment order could, in any case, have been made at any tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
