9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (12) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruck down by this Court in K. Venkata Ramana v. State of A.P.[1969] 24 S.T.C. 367., revisions by the Deputy Commissioner became validated by virtue of the provisions of Act 9 of 1970. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contend that it is not possible to draw any such distinction between assessments which have been made by an assessing authority and assessments revived by a Deputy Commissioner in exercise of revisional jurisdiction because of the Validation Act and, as such, there should have been fresh assessments as held by the Division Bench. As the question raised is of importance, the decision of this Court is sought to be distinguished by the Government Pleader. We, therefore, direct these four cases to be posted before a Full Bench. The question that requires to be resolved in these cases is: "Whether the assessments in dispute can be said to be subsisting by virtue of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (Act 9 of 1970)?" [In pursuance of the abovesaid order of reference the cases came on for hearing before the Full Bench.] The Government Pleader for Home, for the petitioner. S. Dasaratharama Reddi (T.R.C. Nos. 47, 57 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f article 14 of the Constitution. It was further held therein that the collective turnover of the dealers, who acted as commission agents, cannot be taken into account for determining their tax liability. In view of this judgment, the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and restoring the order of the assessing authority was rendered ineffective and invalid. At that juncture, the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (Act 9 of 1970) (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Act 9 of 1970") was enacted by which both the resident ryot principals and the commission agents were made liable to tax irrespective of their respective turnovers. That Act also validated all assessments and at the same time gave protection to those dealers, who did not collect tax. The relevant provisions of Amendment Act 9 of 1970 are sections 8 and 9. The validity of Amendment Act 9 of 1970 was also assailed before this Court. However, the Amendment Act was upheld in Jonnala Narasimharao Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1971] 28 S.T.C. 262 at 264 (A.P.). except in so far as section 9 of the Amendment Act was concerned. That matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. The period of limitation prescribed under the provisions of section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act can be extended only by making a provision in the Amendment Act itself. In the absence of any provision extending the period of limitation for making an order of assessment or reassessment under section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, the provisions of section 14 only are applicable to the case on hand and the reassessment should have been made on or before 31st March, 1970, as it has been made on 21st January, 1972, in the absence of any extension of period of limitation in Amendment Act 9 of 1970 for making such assessment or reassessment as the case may be............ the order of reassessment (made by the Commercial Tax Officer on 21st January, 1972) is barred by time". In coming to this view, the Appellate Tribunal purported to follow the judgment of this Court dated 23rd September, 1975, in Writ Petition No. 2922 of 1974, which was reported in K. Audinarayana and Sons v. Commercial Tax Officer, Anakapalli(1). The tax revision case is to revise this order of the Sales Tax Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Act 9 of 1970. The learned counsel for the assessees, Sri Dasaratharama Reddi, however, argued that no such distinction can be made and a fresh assessment has to be made in spite of amending Act 9 of 1970, and as any assessment or reassessment for the years in question would be beyond four years, they are barred by limitation under section 14 of the Act. Having regard to the importance of the question raised, the Division Bench directed these tax revision cases to be posted before a Full Bench for resolving the following question: "Whether the assessments in dispute can be said to be subsisting by virtue of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (Act 9 of 1970)? (for short the A.P.G.S.T. Act)." We may state at the outset that from the judgment in K. Audinarayana and Sons v. Commercial Tax Officer, Anakapalli[1977] 39 S.T.C. 547., it is not clear as to which particular Validation Act had come up for consideration before that Bench. The broad proposition that "when an assessment has been set aside and is sought to be revived by a Validation Act, there should be a fresh assessment" seems to have been conceded by both sides as covered "by a numbe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id not exceed Rs. 10,000 but the turnover. of many commission agents relating to all their resident principals put together during an assessment year far exceeded Rs. 10,000 and they were assessed to tax. However, when that was questioned, this Court in Irri Veera Raju v. Commercial Tax Officer[1967] 20 S.T.C. 501. declared that as each principal's turnover did not exceed the taxable limit, the commission agents' turnovers were not exigible to tax under section 11 of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, as it stood before it was amended by Amendment Act 5 of 1968. To get over the effect of this decision and to safeguard against any possible evasion by agent-dealers who purport to act on behalf of fictitious principals, section 11 was amended by Act 5 of 1968, so as to make the agent liable in respect of the transactions of several principals and irrespective of the liability of the principals. This provision also was struck down by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as violative of article 14 of the Constitution in K. Venkata Ramana v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1969] 24 S.T.C. 367. The State of Andhra Pradesh then enacted the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1970 (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the commencement of this Act, shall be deemed to be as valid and effective as if such assessment, reassessment, levy or collection or action or thing had been made, taken or done under the principal Act as amended by this Act and accordingly-, (a) all acts, proceedings or things done or taken by the State Government or by any officer of the State Government or by any other authority in connection with the assessment, reassessment, levy or collection of such tax shall for all purposes, be deemed to be, and to have always been, done or taken in accordance with law; (b) no suit or other proceedings shall be maintained or continued in any court or before any authority for the refund of any such tax; and (c) no court shall enforce any decree or order directing the refund of any such tax. (2) It is hereby declared that nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as preventing any person- (a) from questioning in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act, as amended by this Act, any assessment, reassessment, levy or collection of tax referred to in sub-section (1), or (b) from claiming refund of any tax paid by him in excess of the amount due from him by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be deemed to have come into force on the 1st July, 1968; and the remaining provisions shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, appoint." In view of the above amendments, it has to be seen whether on the basis of the assessments already made, tax could be recovered or fresh assessments have to be made. Whether a particular Amendment Act relating to the general sales tax merely amends the defective provision enabling the tax authorities to assess in future according to that provision or merely empowers them to reopen assessments already made and make fresh assessments for the assessment years prior to the amendment or goes further and revives an assessment by its own force and validates the assessments already made retrospectively dispensing with a fresh assessment, is a matter which has to be determined on the wording, the scheme and the intendment of the particular Amendment Act. When a particular provision of an enactment, say, an Act relating to sales tax is declared invalid by a court, an Amendment Act may be brought merely to cure the defect pointed out by the judgment to make the particular provision more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or collection made, valid. Suffice to refer in this regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills v. Broach Municipality[1971] 79 I.T.R. 136 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 192., which lays down as under: "When a legislature sets out to validate a tax declared by a court to be illegally collected under an ineffective or an invalid law, the cause for ineffectiveness or invalidity must be removed before validation can be said to take place effectively. The most important condition, of course, is that the legislature must possess the power to impose the tax, for, if it does not, the action must ever remain ineffective and illegal. Granted legislative competence, it is not sufficient to declare merely that the decision of the court shall not bind, for that is tantamount to reversing the decision in exercise of judicial power which the legislature does not possess or exercise. A court's decision must always bind unless the conditions on which it is based are so fundamentally altered that the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances. Ordinarily, a court holds a tax to be invalidly imposed because the power to tax is wanting or the statute or t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alidate the past levy, the Government have decided to remove the minimum turnover limit in respect of the jaggery dealers with effect from 1st August, 1963, up to the date of the commencement of the present amendment and in order, however, to ensure that no hardship is caused to dealers, who have not collected the tax, it is proposed to provide that such dealers will not be liable to pay tax.............................." Thus Amendement Act 9 of 1970 was avowedly passed for the purpose of validating the assessments and reassessments, levy and collection which were rendered invalid on account of the judgment of this Court in K. Venkata Ramana v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1969] 24 S.T.C. 367. The High Court had in Irri Veera Raju v. Commercial Tax Officer[1967] 20 S.T.C. 501. held that the commission agent's turnover was not exigible to tax because he being an agent his liability was co-extensive with that of the principal. But the assessments were being made on the agents on the aggregate of the turnover of their several principals which exceeded Rs. 10,000 notwithstanding the fact that the turnover of each of the principals did not exceed Rs. 10,000. Hence that action was struck d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e were non-resident principals for whom he was dealing, that the vicarious nature of the liability of the agent remains unaffected, and that the basis of his liability as being only a convenient representative for the assessment, levy and collection of the tax, was unaltered. Declaring that provision to be invalid as violative of article 14 of the Constitution, the Division Bench in K. Venkata Ramana v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1969] 24 S.T.C. 367. observed: "An agent who sells goods on behalf of a principal is a dealer just in the same way as a principal is a dealer in respect of the same goods. Section 11 is seeking to apply the incidence of tax differently between the same class of persons, in that where a principal employs an agent, no tax liability attaches in respect of transactions entered into by him directly if the turnover is less than Rs. 10,000, but the agent will be taxed irrespective of whether the principal is liable or not. Again if we take the case of a principal whose turnover exceeds Rs. 10,000, the turnover of the agent in respect of the goods sold or purchased on behalf of such a principal is liable and the State can assess either the principal or the agent in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 9 as discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the Constitution. But the Supreme Court, on appeal, upheld both sections 8 and 9 to be valid and reversed the judgment of the High Court to the extent of section 9 of the Amendment Act. The Supreme Court held that the commission agents had no locus standi to maintain the petitions. Whatever objections the principal dealers might have to the constitutional validity of the provisions introduced by the amending Act of 1970 under article 14 of the Constitution of India, the agent-dealers had no locus standi to complain about discrimination between the principal dealers inter se. Though a commission agent was a dealer within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Act the commission agent did not suffer any loss or disadvantage which would entitle him to seek a remedy under article 226, because the tax had already been collected, and the tax, though at first illegally collected, became legal by virtue of the Amendment Act of 1970, and as a dealer he was liable to pay the amount to the State in respect of the assessments made and there was nothing to show that what was sought to be recovered was more than what he had collected. Thus the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is unquestionable. That being so, the order of the Deputy Commissioner stands revived by the Validation Act. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Shah Jamnadas Amichand[1975] 35 S.T.C. 281., a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider a similar question where inter-State transactions of a dealer in turmeric were taxed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, by the Commercial Tax Officer. But on appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, following the decision in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty Sons[1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.)., had held: "That since such transactions were not amenable to local tax if they had taken place inside the State, they were also not liable to tax under the Central Act." Subsequently, the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (28 of 1969) was passed and thereupon the Commercial Tax Officer issued notices asking the petitioner to either claim exemption under section 10 of the Amendment Act or otherwise pay the amount as per the assessment validated by section 9 of that Act. The assessee filed writ petition contending that a combined reading of sections 9 and 10 would mean that the assessments had to be reopened in order to de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They are the decisions in Writ Petition No. 682 of 1972 and batch dated 30th November, 1972, and in Chopperla Suryanarayana Moorthy Co. v. Additional Commercial Tax Officer1972 A.P. High Court Notes 152. In Writ Petition No. 682 of 1972 and batch, Gopal Rao Ekbote (the then Chief Justice) speaking for the Bench, dealing with the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (12 of 1971), held: "A tax statute may be retroactive if the legislature clearly so intends. The Amendment Act is undoubtedly a curative Act. It is well-known that the curative Act is a statute passed to cure defects in prior law, or to validate legal proceedings, instruments, or acts of public and private administrative authorities which in the absence of such an Act, would be void for want of conformity with existing legal requirements, but which would have been valid if the statute had so provided at the time of enactment. Generally, curative Acts are made necessary because of some errors in the original enactment of a statute or in its administration. Action under the statute is usually taken in good faith and no rights are jeopardized by the validation of the previous good faith action. Most of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9) amending section 6 and inserting section 6(1A), sub-section (2A) in section 8 and sections 9 and 10 of the Amendment Act, held: "This provision has the effect of breathing life into assessments or reassessments or levy and collection of tax, which were held to be not in accordance with the statutory provisions. When an assessment has been validated, the State is empowered to recover tax and other dues payable in accordance with the provisions of sections 30 and 17 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. By the fiction introduced, any action taken or anything done under the principal Act is deemed to have been taken or done under the Amendment Act, the result of which is that status quo ante is restored. It follows that the assessments, reassessments, levy and collection of tax or any action taken or anything done under the Act prior to its amendment are valid and perfectly legal." A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Subramania Chettiar Sons v. State of Tamil Nadu[1977] 39 S.T.C. 103. dealing with the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act (Act 18 of 1966), which substituted a new section for the original section 16 with retrospective effect from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment orders set aside by such authority for the said reason as if the same had been made under or pursuant to section 6(1-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act; (3) that as the demand made pursuant to the original assessment orders were also rendered valid and effective, recovery of tax pursuant to such demand did not stand in need of any machinery other than or in addition to the machinery provisions contained in the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, read with the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; (4) that as the retention of the tax refunded to the petitioner was unlawful and the demand originally made became valid and enforceable, such demand attracted the entire machinery for recovery provided in the Sales Tax Act and the notices received by the petitioner must be regarded as mere reminders or communications to it that under the law as amended the original demand had become enforceable and that the petitioner could no longer retain the money refunded to it." In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view that sections 8 and 9 of the Validation Act which have been held to be valid in Jonnala Narasimharao Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1971] 28 S.T.C. 262 at 283 (S.C.). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipal Act as amended retrospectively by the Amendment Act retrospectively valid. Amendment Act 9 of 1970 did not provide a separate machinery to work out the provisions of sections 8 and 9. Hence, according to him, after the enactment of Validation Act 9 of 1970, the concerned Commercial Tax Officers are required to make a fresh assessment within four years under the Act as amended by Act 9 of 1970. According to him, both sections 8 and 9 are charging sections and the assessment has to be done under the Act in the light of sections 8 and 9. Since no separate provision for such assessment has been made and no special or extended period of limitation has been prescribed, the limitation of four years provided under section 14 of the Act would apply to such assessments as well and such of those assessments which are beyond four years would be barred by limitation. According to him, this bar of limitation could have been avoided by the Deputy Commissioner revising the order dated 24th October, 1968, within four years of the service of the order under section 20. According to him, even the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 1st August, 1967, could have been revised by the Deputy Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the legislature must devise machinery for enforcing it against the taxpayer and if the legislature has failed to do so, the court cannot resort to a fiction which is not prescribed by the legislature and seek to effectuate that alteration by devising machinery not found in the statute." This majority decision rendered by Shah, J., was dissented by Rajagopala Ayyangar and S.K. Das, JJ. Be that as it may, the majority judgment was dealing with only an Amendment Act and not a Validation Act. The court, on an interpretation of the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the notifications issued under that Act, held: "The notification enjoins the levy of the tax at the altered rate only in respect of sales taking place after the fixed date, and all sales which preceded that date are to be taxed at the original rate. In the face of the language employed sales anterior to the date specified could not be affected." In that context, the Supreme Court posed the question: "Is any machinery provided in the Act or the Rules for projecting this division of the year of assessment into the previous year, and for apportioning the turnover of that year?" and noted that "express provision in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Y. Lakshminarasimhiah Setty's case[1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.). and holding that because under the general sales tax law of the Kerala State eggs were not taxable except at the last point of purchase in the State they were not taxable in the course of inter-State sale, discharged the order of assessment. The Supreme Court, on appeal, set aside the order of the High Court in view of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 1969, which superseded the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Y. Lakshminarasimhiah Setty Sons[1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.). The Supreme Court also set aside the order passed by the sales tax authorities and directed that assessments be made in the manner provided by the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as amended by the Ordinance. No doubt, by section 9 of the Amendment Ordinance, a provision similar to section 8 was made and by section 10 provision similar to section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act (Act 9 of 1970) was made but at the same time the Ordinance also amended sections 2, 6 and 9 of the principal Act which relate to the levy and collection of tax and penalties in accordance with the amended provisions. It is, therefore, having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessees, relies upon the judgment in State of Kerala v. Joseph and Co.[1970] 25 S.T.C. 483 (S.C.). Reliance was also placed on the judgment in State of Madras v. East India Corporation(2) in which the Supreme Court referring to the relevant amended provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, following the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Y. Lakshminarasimhiah Setty Sons[1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.). held that, "Since the Central Sales Tax Act has been amended with retrospective effect, the assessment to tax must be made in the light of the amended provisions." That again was a case of an Amendment Act in which there was no validation of the assessments; only the relevant charging section was retrospectively amended; hence the necessity of making a fresh assessment in the light of the amended provisions. That decision, therefore, cannot be of any help to the assessees in their present contention. Reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Commercial Tax Officer v. Sri Venkateswara Oil Mills[1971] 1 S.C.W.R. 916. That was also a case where dealers who were earlier assessed in accordance with the decision in State of Mysore v. Y. La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not in any way militate against what is stated by us having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills v. Broach Municipality[1971] 79 I.T.R. 136 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 192. Another glaring point for distinction between the enactments which came up for consideration in those cases and the case on hand is that the finality of the judgment or assessment orders was left untouched as in Ceylon Thowfeck Hotel v. State of Madras[1961] 12 S.T.C. 238., whereas under Act 9 of 1970 the assessment and reassessments made earlier are deemed to have been made under the principal Act as amended by the Amendment Act with retrospective effect. Mr. Dasaratharama Reddi, the learned counsel for the assessees, placed reliance also on the judgment of Venkataramiah, J., in Rallis India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes[1974] 33 S.T.C. 484. In that judgment, no doubt, the learned single Judge distinguished the case on hand from the Full Bench decision of that Court in Gill Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer[1973] 31 S.T.C. 336 (F.B.). on the ground that no validation of assessment orders was possible in that case, as the assessment orders thems ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of certain assessments, etc., of tax on declared goods notwithstanding any judgment or decree or order of the court. In our view, that is not the situation in the present case. The provision which was declared to be invalid was validated with retrospective effect and it also validated the assessment orders. The power of legislature to so amend cannot be doubted. When the amendment in the present case is so made, a fresh assessment order is not required. Further, the liability to tax is not so altered by the amendment as to require a fresh assessment or a review of the previous assessment orders. The provisions of section 11AA of the Validation Act were mandatory in nature which enjoined a review of the previous assessment; there is no provision under the Amendment Act (Act 9 of 1970) similar to that. In Venkatappa Sons v. Ramalingam Pillai and Sons[1973] 32 S.T.C. 274., the Madras High Court held that as the Amendment Act with which it was concerned in that case merely validates assessments and reassessments, levy or collection of tax already made, that did not enable the authorities to go behind the order of refund without bringing to charge by reassessment the inter-State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mendment Act, which is the position under Act 9 of 1970. We may also add that this judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court proceeds on a principle contrary to the principle laid down in Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach Municipality[1971] 79 I.T.R. 136 (S.C.); A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 192. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the assessees that unless there is a fresh order of assessment, the assessment orders cannot be given effect to, and that the assessment orders made earlier do not subsist by virtue of the provisions of the Validation Act (Act 9 of 1970). The learned counsel for the assessees next contended that sections 8 and 9 read together constitute charging sections and, therefore, fresh assessments have to be made under these sections which are introduced by the Amendment Act (Act 9 of 1970). This premise, in our view, is not correct. So far as section 8 is concerned, it merely validates the assessments already made and creates a legal fiction that the assessments or reassessments made under the previous Act would be deemed to be assessments or reassessments made under the amending Act, even on the date when they were made, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned counsel for the assessees that whatever may be the position with regard to the recovery of the tax in pursuance of the assessment orders validated by Act 9 of 1970 where the tax collected has already been refunded, in the absence of any specific provision in this behalf to recover the refunded amount, no demand notice can be issued to them. Very strong reliance is placed for this proposition on the judgment of the Madras High Court in Venkatappa Sons v. Ramalingam Pillai and Sons[1973] 32 S.T.C. 274., to which reference has been made above. For the reasons mentioned in that context the present case stands on a different footing. If we are right in our conclusion that the Validation Act validates the assessments and entitles the commercial taxes authorities to recover the tax, we do not see how the dealers who are under an obligation to pay the sales tax as assessed under the assessment orders can escape the liability, merely because prior to the Validation Act they have obtained refund of the amount paid by them. Once the orders of assessment are revived, the liability to pay tax subsists and in the absence of specific provision exempting the dealers in whose favour re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended provision would be deemed to have been in force from the appointed day. For the same reason the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Shakti Cotton Company[1972] 29 S.T.C. 706 (S.C.). on which reliance is placed also can be of no assistance to the assessees. In the judgment in W.P. Nos. 9 and 10 of 1974 dated 8th April, 1974, which was rendered pursuant to the Yaddalam's case [1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.)., the question of bar of limitation did not come up for consideration. Even in W.P. No. 4797 of 1972, the judgment of the Division Bench dated 27th August, 1974, which quashed the assessment orders and recovery proceedings, directed the assessing authorities to decide the matter afresh and did not go into the question of limitation now posed before us. In this view of the matter, no question of bar of limitation arises. Assessments having been revived by virtue of section 8(1), they continue to subsist and if the tax has not already been paid, it can be recovered and if it has been refunded prior to the Amendment Act, it can still be recovered. To sum up the result of the foregoing discussion: When a legislature sets out to validate a tax declared by a court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... moved the defects or deficiencies pointed out by the courts, in this behalf, in the existing law. Sections 8 and 9 of Amending Act 9 of 1970 are not charging sections. Section 8 validates the assessments, reassessments, levy and collection retrospectively by creating a legal fiction. Section 9 merely enables the assessees to claim exemption from tax if no tax was collected by them. Since the assessments already made are in conformity with the principal Act as amended by Amendment Act 9 of 1970, and those assessments are retrospectively validated, there is no need to make a fresh assessment to recover the tax payable as per those assessment orders. Consequently, the question of any bar of limitation does not arise. No special machinery either for making a fresh assessment or for recovery of the tax payable thereunder was required to be provided. Since the assessments stand revived and subsist, the liability to pay the tax continues. The refund ordered earlier does not extinguish that liability. Notwithstanding the earlier order of refund, the assessment order having sprung to life, in view of the Validation Act, the tax refunded can be recovered. Orders issued to recover the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
