9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (2) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 31st October, 1952. Originally, the assessments in respect of each of these two periods were completed by assessment orders dated 4th May, 1951, in the case of the earlier period and 26th February, 1954, in the case of the second period. It appears that in the case of the applicants in income-tax proceedings, the Income-tax Officer passed an assessment order for the assessment year 1951-52 (Samvat Year 2005) on 28th March, 1956. Thereafter the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax issued two notices to the applicants on 13th June, 1958, purporting to act under section 31 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. One notice was in respect of the first period and the other was in respect of the second period covered by these two references. In bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiate proceedings for reassessing an escaped turnover in respect of the applicants in the exercise of revisional powers under section 31 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. There were other contentions of law raised with which we are not concerned. The Tribunal by its order dated 30th August, 1963, rejected the legal contentions raised by the applicants. It may be mentioned that the applicants had approached this court, invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under the Constitution and challenging the notices under Article 226 of the Constitution. Among other grounds raised before the court in that petition the applicants had also contended that the Assistant Collector could not exercise revisional jurisdiction beyond a reasonable time. Wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n could not be arrogated by the authority exercising revisional jurisdiction either under section 22 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, or section 31 of the The learned counsel for the applicants has strongly relied in support of this contention on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 637 of 1967 decided on 29th November, 1967, in The Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. v. Shri H.B. Munshi[1968] 21 S.T.C. 383. A copy of that judgment, which is yet not reported, has been made available to us at the hearing. After referring to another decision in that court (The State of Kerala v. K.M. Cheria Abdulla and Company[1965] 16 S.T.C. 875. their Lordships then quoted the following passage from that judgment: "It would not invest the revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. The revision should have been held to be incompetent on the ground that the power was sought to be exercised for assessment of escaped turnover which had not been assessed at all at the initial stage of assessment under section 11 and proceedings under section 11-A could have been competently initiated for bringing that turnover to tax. Instead, the court equated the proceeding in revision with the proceeding for reassessment and applied the 4-year period of limitation which was prescribed only for reassessment and not for exercise of revisional power. In our opinion, the ultimate decision in that case was perfectly correct, but we are unable to affirm the view that the revisional power is governed by any period of limitation laid down i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
