9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by law of limitation. In that view of the matter, the additional substantial question of law framed today is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red on 7th June, 1982. The assessee in that case had purchased copra during the years 1961- 62 and 1962-63. The law, as it then stood, did not serve the purpose of bringing to tax the purchases of copra. The Kerala State Legislature, therefore enacted the Kerala Sales Tax (Levy and Validation) Act, 1965 to validate the levy of tax on copra during the said two years, among others and to enable assessments to be made where non-existed. Section 3 of the Act, which was to operate retrospectively from 1st April, 1958, imposed a liability on every dealer to pay tax on his turnover relating to purchase of copra. Section 4(1)(iv) which operated from 27th September, 1965, enabled assessments to be made within three years (extended by subsequent amen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive order, an order which is operative. The exceptions are cases where there is requirement of pronouncing the orders and they are pronounced on notified dates. Then irrespective of the actual presence or otherwise of the parties, notice to the parties is assumed. In other cases, if the authority making the order fails to communicate the order, the order could not be said to have been made, for communication of such order is an essential part of making such order. This is naturally so, for any authority who writes out an order and signs it is free to change it at any time before it is communicated. It is not final at all, for the authority may become wiser on information supplied to it or otherwise and may choose to change the order at any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his case had been so issued from his office within the period prescribed, it has to be held that the proceedings are barred by limitation. This question has not been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, which passed the order, apparently did not have the benefit of the decision in Malayil Mills case (T. R. C. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1981 decided on 7th June, 1982-Kerala High Court) which, so far as we could see, remains, unreported. The matter has therefore to go back to the Tribunal for an examination of the records to ascertain whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner had been issued from his office within the period of four years prescribed in Section 35(2) of the Act. The Tribunal will adjudicate the matter in the light of the observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
