9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (10) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the assessment orders and directed the Sales Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law and with the appellate order passed by that authority. In pursuance of this direction, exhibit P2 notice dated 4th July, 1974, was issued, which resulted in the impugned orders exhibits P3 to P6. 3.. Section 19 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1963, in so far as it is material, reads: "19. Assessment of escaped turnover.-(1) Where for any reason the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer has escaped assessment to tax in any year or has been under-assessed or has been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable, or any deduction has been wrongly made therefrom, the assessing authority may, at any time within four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates, proceed to determine to the best of its judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment to tax or has been under-assessed or has been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable or the deduction that has been wrongly made and assess the tax payable on such turnover after issuing a notice on the dealer and after making such enquiry as it may con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ployed in rule 33 with a definite intention to set the limit within which the final order in the matter of assessment should be made, the limit being three years. We find it difficult to accept that in the context of sales tax legislation the use of the words 'proceed to assess' and 'determine' would lead to different consequences or results. In this connection the words which follow the word 'determine' in rule 33 must be accorded their due signification. The words 'assess the tax payable' cannot be ignored and it is clearly meant that the assessment has to be made within the period prescribed. Assessment is a comprehensive word and can denote the entirety of proceedings which are taken with regard to it. It cannot and does not mean a final order of assessment alone unless there is something in the context of a particular provision which compels such a meaning being attributed to it. In our judgment despite the phraseology employed in rule 33 the principle which has been laid in other cases relating to analogous provisions in sales tax statute must be followed as otherwise the purpose of a provision like rule 33 can be completely defeated by taking certain collateral proceedings a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act had been set aside by the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, no proceeding in connection with that assessment was pending, and reassessment was barred, as more than three years had elapsed since the end of the year of assessment. The Division Bench of the High Court ultimately took the view that the Sales Tax Officer was competent to revise the order in view of the order of remand which directed the officer to make a fresh assessment against the assessee. The High Court was of the view that the Sales Tax Officer was bound to comply with this direction of the appellate authority, and that assessment proceedings carried out in pursuance of such a direction from the appellate authority could not be governed by the period of limitation prescribed by section 21 of the Act. It is pertinent to notice that section 21 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, as quoted in the judgment, read as follows: "Where the whole or any part of the turnover of a dealer has, for any reason, escaped assessment to tax in any year, the assessing authority may, at any time within three years from the expiry of such year, and after issuing notice to the dealer and m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the period prescribed by sub-section (2) of section 21." The decision is, therefore, quite understandable in the light of the statutory provisions dealt with and considered, but is of no assistance to the counsel for the assessee. 7.. We would also refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Tirur Medical Stores v. State of Kerala[1978] 42 S.T.C. 118 ; I.L.R. [1978] 2 Ker. 24. That decision referred to the Sudarsanam Iyengar's case[1970] 25 S.T.C. 252 (S.C.). and pointed out: "Once proceedings have commenced within the time stipulated-which in the present case is not disputed-the proceedings can validly continue until a final order is made. The fact that the final order was made after the expiry of the period of limitation does not affect the validity of that order if the proceedings which culminated in the final order commenced within the 4-year period. That this is the correct position can no longer be in dispute in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam v. Sudarsanam Iyengar Sons[1970] 25 S.T.C. 252 (S.C.). That case related to rule 33 of the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Rules, 1950, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
