9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (1) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the Sales Tax Officer to pass final orders of assessment and he ought to have proceeded further in the manner provided by that section. In respect of the assessment year 1980, the order in appeal was passed on July 30, 1984. For the assessment year 1981, it was passed on February 28, 1985. Thereupon, the Sales Tax Officer issued notice dated August 16, 1984, for the year 1980 and notice dated May 31, 1985, for the year 1981, calling upon the petitioner to attend his office for the purpose of completing the assessment. The petitioner objected to completion of the assessment proceedings on the ground that the time prescribed by section 42 for completion of such proceedings was over. The petitioner requested the Sales Tax Officer to complete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the petitioner is that the time-limit for passing the order of assessment for the year 1980 expired on December 31, 1983; and for the assessment year 1981, it expired on December 31, 1984 and, therefore, it is now not open to the Sales Tax Officer to pass fresh orders of assessment for those two years. The learned counsel further submitted that what the appellate authority has done in this case is that both the orders of assessment have been set aside on the ground that they were illegal. The cases were not then remanded to the Sales Tax Officer nor any direction for fresh assessment was given by the appellate authority. He submitted that, for that reason, even the second proviso to section 41(1) will have no application. On the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are stayed under the first proviso or by an order or injunction of any court or authority has to be excluded. Therefore, we will have to consider the effect of both these provisos for deciding whether it is still open to the Sales Tax Officer to pass fresh orders of assessment for the years 1980 and 1981. As stated earlier, the third proviso permits passing a fresh order of assessment within three years from the date of the order contemplated by that proviso. Therefore, if it can be said in this case that fresh assessments are required to be made in pursuance of the orders passed in the appeals, then it will have to be held that it is still open to the Sales Tax Officer to pass fresh orders of assessment for those years. That would depen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of such order. The answer has to be in the affirmative, for the reason that if held otherwise, that will leave the assessment proceeding incomplete and result in a situation inconsistent with the scheme of the Act. If the Legislature had intended that fresh assessment can be made by the Sales Tax Officer only if the order contemplated by the third proviso directed him to do so, then, in that case, instead of using the phrase "in pursuance of", it would have used the word "by" and not the words "in pursuance of". The words "in pursuance of " have various meanings. If it is construed narrowly so as to import into it notion of an obligation, then, in our opinion, that will not be consistent with the intention of the Legislature, nor will it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
