9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (1) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 966. The petitioner-company, the respondent before us, is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The return period bad been fixed by the assessing authority as each quarter of the "Akshoytritia year", according to the Bengali calendar. The respondent was, according to the registration certificate, liable to furnish returns within 30 days from the expiry of each such quarter, that is, 4th August, 15th November, 28th January, and 25th April The respondent failed to furnish returns within the aforesaid dates in the year 1951-52. The Commercial Tax Officer issued a single notice dated the 25th October, 1952, under section 11(1) of the Act in respect of all the four quarters ending with the 13th Baisakh, 1359 B. S. In pursuance of that notice, the respondent filed a consolidated return for the four quarters on 15th November, 1955, which was revised on 7th December, 1955 Under such return, the Commercial Tax Officer made his consolidated assessment order dated 29th February, 1956, amounting to over Rs. 9 lakhs of which Rs. 8,35,846-3-3 was found to be due after deducting payments made by the respondent. This sum was demanded from the respondent by the single ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of a single Judge of the High Court to the Division Bench of the High Court. It is said on behalf of the respondent that this was a judgment and order passed by a single judge under article 226 of the Constitution. An appeal does not lie from such a judgment. The main plank on which this argument was built up was that clause 15 of the Letters Patent is abrogated and there is now no longer after the Constitution of India any Letters Patent available for the High Court at Calcutta. We are unable to accept that argument. Under article 225 of the Constitution, it is expressly provided that subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate Legislature, the jurisdiction of, and the law administered in, any existing High Court and the respective powers of the judges thereof in relation to the administration of justice in the court, including any power to make rules of the High Court and to regulate the sittings of the High Court shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. Under the rules of the High Court made for application relating to article 226 of the Constitution it is expressly provided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. We are bound by the observations of the Special Bench. In a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in M. Ramayya v. The State of MadrasA.I.R. 1952 Mad. 300., this point came up for consideration and it was held that an appeal lies from an order passed by a single Judge of a High Court sitting under article 226 of the Constitution. The observations of Govinda Menon, J., who delivered the judgment, particularly at page 303 of the report may be seen. In a recent Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Aidal Singh and Others v. Karan Singh and OthersA.I.R. 1957 All. 414., the same view was expressed. See the observation of Beg, J., in the Allahabad Full Bench decision at pages 432 and 433 of the report. On behalf of the respondent, reliance was placed on a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Collector of Monghyr and Others v. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur and Others A.I.R. 1957 Pat. 102. But that decision does not touch this point. It was more or less concerned with "civil proceedings of a High Court" and the interpretation thereof in article 133 of the Constitution. We may mention here that in a recent decision of the Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, the expression "taxable quantum" is defined and it means"(a) in relation to any dealer who imports for sale any goods into West Bengal, or manufactures or produces any goods for sale, 10,000 rupees; or ......... (c) in relation to any other dealer, 50,000 rupees. " Now, having provided for the incidence of taxation in section 4, the Act then proceeds to provide in section 5 to say "the tax payable by a dealer under this Act shall be levied on his taxable turnover" at certain specified rates. Section 5(2) of the Act defines what "taxable turnover" means in the case of a dealer who is liable to pay tax under section 4, that part of his gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting therefrom certain amounts. Then section 7A of the Act provides for special certificates for dealers liable to pay tax under section 4A. Thereafter, section 8 of the Act provides for voluntary registration and there again it says: "Any dealer whose gross turnover during a year exceeds 10,000 rupees may, notwithstanding that he may not be liable to pay tax under section 4, apply in the prescribed manner to the prescribed authority for registration under this Act." From sections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annually within sixty days from the expiry of each year with effect from such year as the Commercial Tax Officer may direct." It definitely emphasises the annual taxable turnover and a return to be made annually. Rule 19 similarly talks about "the average annual gross turnover". On behalf of the respondent, our attention was drawn to rule 21, which says: "Every registered dealer other than those referred to in rule 17 shall furnish returns quarterly within thirty days from the expiry of each quarter." That means that, apart from the registered dealer mentioned in rule 17, this is a provision for furnishing returns quarterly by other dealers. It does not mean or say that quarterly assessment is permitted by this rule; only quarterly returns are called for. Similarly, rule 24 authorises the appropriate Commercial Tax Officer to "fix monthly return period for a registered dealer who would otherwise be required to furnish returns annually or quarterly under these rules". Rule 30 provides: "If in the opinion of the Commissioner the annual tax payable by any dealer for whom annual return periods have been prescribed is not likely to exceed Rs. 500, such dealer shall pay tax annua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was payable, would exempt sales of those goods throughout the year, unless the Act said that the notification was not to have this effect. This was a case under the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur, and Others[1963] 14 S.T.C. 976 (S.C.)., was mainly concerned with the question of escape of assessment. It only mentioned the statutory obligation of a registered dealer to make a return within the prescribed period, but did not decide this particular point we have in this appeal. There are two more decisions to be cited in this connection. The Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Cooper Co.[1968] 22 S.T.C. III. came to the definite conclusion that the year was the unit, both for the purpose of chargeability and assessment proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. No doubt it was a case under the Central Sales Tax Act. The Supreme Court in the State of Punjab v. Sant Singh Kanwarjit Singh[1970] 25 S.T.C. 525 (S.C.). held that under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, sales tax is an yearly tax, but the provisions relating to assessments contemplate assessment for a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
