Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a provisional assessment under section 7-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could be made where the dealer had filed quarterly returns, and whether rule 41(3) restricted that power only to cases of filing of returns.
Analysis: Section 7-A conferred power to make a provisional assessment for a portion of the assessment year and did not prescribe any precondition that no return should have been filed. The provision was to operate along with the Act, including section 7(3), which empowers assessment to the best of judgment. Rule 41(3) was a supplemental procedural rule and could not be read as cutting down the width of the parent Act. The proper construction was that the assessing authority retained power to make a provisional assessment whether or not a return had been filed, and there was no inconsistency between the Act and the rule.
Conclusion: The provisional assessment was valid, and the challenge to the Sales Tax Officer's jurisdiction failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed and the High Court's quashing of the provisional assessment was set aside, affirming the authority's power to proceed with provisional assessment notwithstanding the filing of returns.
Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate rule cannot be construed to restrict a substantive power conferred by the parent taxing statute, and a provisional assessment provision that is expressed without limiting preconditions applies even where returns have been filed.