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

2000 (11) TMI 1201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under entry 11 of the First Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. According to the assessee, it is not liable to pay any tax as they are only second sellers. As such, they did not file any monthly return in form No. 9 or annual return in form No. 8. According to section 17(1), every dealer who is liable to pay tax shall submit such returns relating to his turnover in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. Rule 21 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 provides that every dealer who is liable to pay tax under the Act and every dealer who is required to do so by the assessing authority by notice shall submit returns. After the lapse of more than nine years, on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sment and remit it back for fixing the stock verification as per inspection dated November 13, 1987 and for reasonable estimation of turnover based on the stock verification to be fixed afresh. It is against the above order that the present revision is filed. 5.. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that the assessment is barred by limitation. As already seen, the assessment year is 1986-87. Admittedly, the petitioner received notice under section 17(3) of the Act only on June 24, 1996, which is nearly nine years after the end of the assessment year. Petitioner was served with form No. 51 summons on March 26, 1991, April 29, 1991, September 9, 1991 and April 29, 1992 to produce certain documents. The question for consideration i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 01] 121 STC 569; 1997 KLJ (TC) 633. In that case, the assessment years in question were 1985-86 to 1988-89. The assessee did not maintain the account books relating to the business and he did not also file any return in respect of the above years. Therefore, the assessing authority completed the assessments on best of judgment on the basis of the details gathered during the inspection of the mill made on February 16, 1989. The question arose whether there was limitation. In paragraph 5 of the above decision, it was observed thus: "This is a case where the dealer has not filed any return for the assessment years in question though he is legally bound to do so under section 17(1) of the Act. If no return is submitted by the dealer within the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d under section 8(2) should be within three years as stated in section 10. In dealing with that question, the Supreme Court held as follows: "There is no doubt that where the dealer has not filed the prescribed return of his turnover, the case is clearly one of 'escaped assessment', and the proceeding for assessment must commence in respect of that turnover within the period prescribed by section 10. Where however a return is filed by a dealer under section 7, a proceeding for assessment commences, and a notice under sub-section (2) of section 8 is a step in the proceeding for completing the assessment". In R.E.M. Ramakutty Nadar v. State of Madras [1973] 31 STC 44 (Mad.), a same question arose. After referring to the decision in Regional A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1 STC 569 (Ker); (1997) KLJ (TC) 633 and Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore v. Malwa Vanaspati and Chemical Co. Ltd. [1968] 21 STC 431 (SC). If no return is filed, it has to be treated as escaped assessment and hence, limitation under section 19 of the Act will apply. 8.. The next question is whether a demand in form 51 notice will save the limitation. In T.R.C. No. 54 of 1982 a division Bench consisting of P. Subramonian Poti and T. Chandrasekhara Menon, JJ., considered the question whether direction to produce documents can be taken as a notice. There, the court said that a mere direction to produce accounts does not indicate that the officer has proceeded to determine the turnover that has escaped assessment. Therefor .....

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