TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the amended section 31(1) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, as retrospectively validated by the Assam Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1966, could sustain the notice issued for revision of completed assessments. (ii) Whether the case was instead one of turnover escaping assessment under section 19A, and whether the notice could be invalidated on the ground that accounts older than three years could not be demanded.
Issue (i): Whether the amended section 31(1) of the Assam Sales Tax Act, 1947, as retrospectively validated by the Assam Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1966, could sustain the notice issued for revision of completed assessments.
Analysis: The earlier basis of the High Court's decision no longer survived because the legislature had given retrospective effect to section 31(1) from the inception of the principal Act. Once the amendment was treated as part of the Act from the original date, the objection that the provision was not retrospective could not invalidate the notice on that ground. The remaining question was only whether the facts brought the case within section 31(1).
Conclusion: The notice under section 31(1) could not be quashed on the ground that the provision lacked retrospective operation.
Issue (ii): Whether the case was instead one of turnover escaping assessment under section 19A, and whether the notice could be invalidated on the ground that accounts older than three years could not be demanded.
Analysis: The contention that the matter fell exclusively within section 19A and was barred by limitation was treated as a matter to be urged before the assessing authority. Likewise, the objection based on rule 62 and the three-year preservation period for accounts was held to be a matter for determination on the statutory scheme and the existing record, not for quashing the notice at the threshold. The Court indicated that the authority had to decide the matter on the evidence and accounts already on record, without calling for impermissible additional material.
Conclusion: The objections based on section 19A and the account-preservation rule did not warrant interference with the notice at this stage.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the notice failed, and the writ petition stood dismissed, with the notice under section 31(1) left intact for determination according to law.
Ratio Decidendi: A notice for revision of assessment cannot be quashed merely because the relevant statutory power was later retrospectively validated, and objections that the matter falls under another provision or is time-barred are ordinarily matters for the assessing authority to decide in the first instance.
TaxTMI 
