9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (12) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under S. 34(1)(a) of the Act was issued to one Hussain Bhai Abdullabhai, a son by the first wife of Fazallali. He filed a return on 9-3-1957 showing this amount in the D section. The validity of this notice was challenged in this court by W.P. 231 of 1957 under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Since no stay of further proceedings in assessment was granted, the assessment was completed on 15-3-1957, under S. 34(1)(a). On 15-3-1958, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy. In the meantime he had filed an appeal on 15-4-1957 which was allowed on 24-4-1958 on the ground that the notice issued under S. 34(1)(a) was invalid because it had been served only on one of the four legal representatives ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat fresh notice served under S. 34(1)(a) beyond eight years of the assessment order is barred by time. That will be so but for any other saving provision. (3) For the Revenue the contention is that Section 4 of Central Act I of 1959 saved the fresh notice from the bar of limitation. On the other hand, for the assessees it is said that this proviso does not have that effect. We have to solve this controversy on a construction of S. 4. That section reads :- No notice issued under clause (a) of sub section(1) of section 34 of the principle Act at any time before the commencement of this Act and no assessment, re-assessment or settlement made or other proceeding taken in consequence of such notice shall be called in question in any cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey should have been issued under S. 34(I)(a) as in force before its amendment by clause (a) of S. 18 of the Finance Act 1956 had expired. (4) But it is contended for the assessees that the latter part of the section confined the saving only to notices which were issued prior to the Finance Act 1956 and it will not cover notice issued, or in this case, subsequent to that date, We are unable to accept this construction of the section. It seems to us that to adopt that construction will involve inconsistency between the earlier and latter parts of the section. When the section begins by making reference to notices issued before the commencement of the Act, that is to say, 12-3-1959 and when the latter part of the section says that such noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made clear from the following observations: the last part of Section 4 shows in my opinion its true intent, namely that what is intended is to validate post-1956 action, that is action taken under Section 34 as amended by Section 18 of the Finance Act 1956 . Kapur J. was of a similar view; The notices to which Section 4 applies and which are validated are those that were issued between the periods mentioned in that Act i.e. before the Amending Act 1959 and after the Finance Act 1956 in spite of the expiry of the eight years period before the amendment by the Finance Act of 1956 . The view of Hidayatullah J. is stated thus:- By the validating Section 4 of the 1959 Act, any notice issued before 1959 could not be challenged e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
