Mandatory tax assessment provision prevails over return election, with rule-based procedure unable to override the statute.

Section 18(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was treated as a mandatory assessment provision for a dealer who commenced business during an assessment year, requiring turnover for the next succeeding year to be fixed at twelve times the average monthly turnover determined under section 18(3). The dealer's election to file quarterly returns under rule 39(1) did not create an implied exception to that statutory mandate, and rule 41(5) could not override the Act. The assessment under section 18(4) was upheld, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 18(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 required assessment of a dealer who commenced business during an assessment year on the notional turnover of the next succeeding year, notwithstanding the dealer's election to submit quarterly returns for the assessment year under rule 39(1) and assessment under section 7 read with rule 41(5).

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between a dealer ordinarily assessed on the previous year's turnover, a dealer who elected to return the assessment year's turnover, and a dealer who commenced business during the course of an assessment year. Section 18(3) governed assessment of a newly commencing dealer in the year of commencement, while section 18(4) directed the assessing authority to fix and assess the turnover for the next succeeding year at twelve times the average monthly turnover determined under section 18(3). The provision was treated as mandatory and not subject to any express exception. The election permitted by rule 39(1) could not be read as creating an implied limitation on section 18(4), and rule 41(5) could not override the express statutory mandate. In construing a taxing statute, the Court declined to import an implied exception not enacted by the Legislature.

Conclusion: Section 18(4) applied with full force, and the dealer's election to file quarterly returns did not displace the statutory assessment for the next succeeding year.

Final Conclusion: The assessment made under section 18(4) was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An express and mandatory charging or assessment provision in a taxing statute cannot be cut down by implication from an election or procedural rule, and a rule cannot override the statute.

---