9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (11) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t aside by the Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of his revisory jurisdiction under section 20(2) of the Act, by his order dated 2nd May, 1968. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the assessee filed an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal on 19th July, 1972, and remanded the matter to the first assessing authority. Thereafter the first assessing authority passed orders on 7th November, 1975, imposing the penalty. Against this order, the assessee filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, which was dismissed. On further appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, however, the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held that, even if the period between 3rd October, 1966, and 19th July, 1972, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded for assessment of escaped or underassessed turnover. It prescribed two periods of limitation, viz., six years and four years, applicable in two different situations. Sub-section (4) further provided for levying of penalty by the assessing authority in addition to the tax assessed. The section did not expressly provide for any period of limitation for levying penalty. It was, therefore, argued that there is no period of limitation for levying penalty and that, such a penalty can be levied even beyond the periods prescribed in the said sub-section. This argument was negatived by the Bench, which held that the penalty proceedings are not independent proceedings, but are dependent upon a finding by the assessing authority that the whole or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a notice to the assessee. In case the notice under sub-section (2) is not complied with, the Assessing Authority has a power to make a best judgment assessment under sub-sections (4), (5) and (6); but that is to be done within a period of five years from the last date of the relevant quarter. No express period of limitation is prescribed for issuance of the notice under sub-section (2). The argument, however, was that the period of limitation prescribed in sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) must equally apply to a notice under section 11(2). This argument was repelled by the Supreme Court holding that a period of limitation cannot be inferred by analogy. We are unable to see how the principle of the said decision can be said to nullify the pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
