Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1994 (9) TMI 323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion 21 was four years and expired on March 31, 1981. Subsequently by the U.P. Sales Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1982 (U.P. Act No. 4 of 1982), the then existing proviso to sub-section (2) of section 21 was substituted by a new proviso as under: "Provided that the assessment or reassessment for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 may be made by December 31, 1982." This was done with retrospective effect from November 1, 1978. The Sales Tax Tribunal has allowed the second appeal of the appellant for the assessment year 1976-77 holding the assessment to be barred by time. The Tribunal has discussed the issue as under: "However, in respect of assessment year 1976-77 under section 21(2), the limitation for making .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the assessment order dated November 26, 1983, was passed which ultimately went before the Tribunal and has been set aside with the observations quoted above. As is clear from the order of the Tribunal it has not noted that the assess- ment order in question was passed after the matter had been remanded to the assessing authority though this fact is mentioned in the very sentence of the assessment order. The Tribunal has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Jaiswal Colour Trading Company v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1987 UPTC 504 in which it was held that where no proceedings were pending and the matter had become dead or closed, subsequent enhancement of the period of limitation could not enable the initiation of proceedings .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arat, Karnataka and Orissa High Courts in Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Watan Mechanical and Turning Works [1977] 107 ITR 743 (AP) [FB], Commissioner of Income-tax v. Royal Motor Car Co. [1977] 107 ITR 753 (Guj), Commissioner of Income-tax v. M. Nagappa [1978] 114 ITR 707 (Kar), Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa v. Soubhagya Manjari Devi [1976] 105 ITR 82 (Orissa) and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhikari Charan Panda [1976] 104 ITR 73 (Orissa). We are in respectful agreement with these authorities. On facts it is clear that the amended period of limitation was applicable to the present case." As is evident, the amendment in this case by Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1970, was not made effective by the Legislature from the prev .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dependent discussion of the issue and the decision of a learned single Judge is based on Hargu Charan's case [1979] 119 ITR 622 (All.); 1979 UPTC 852. It has nowhere been mentioned whether the amendment to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 21 by the U.P. Act No. 2 of 1980 was legislatively made prospective or not. A similar controversy regarding a retrospective amendment to section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act reached the honourable Supreme Court in Jaipuria Brothers Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1965] 16 STC 494. In that case the question was about the period of limitation for an assessment to be made in pursuance of the order of remand. At that time there was no specific provision in section 21 governing the period of limitat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r. The Legislature has amended the proviso to section 21(2) with effect from November 1, 1978 and the case could be treated as dead or closed only if before November 1, 1978, the period of limitation as operative had expired. This was not so in this case because the proceedings relate to assessment year 1976-77 and the period of limitation prescribed in the main sub-section (2) of section 21 was four years which expired on March 31, 1981 and hence on November 1, 1978, the case cannot be said to have been dead or closed. For the above reasons, neither the judgment of the Division Bench in Hargu Charan's case [1979] 119 ITR 622 (All.); 1979 UPTC 852 nor that of the learned single Judge in Jaiswal Colour Trading Company 1987 UPTC 504 applies .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates