Period-wise limitation for sales tax reassessment applied strictly, invalidating earlier notices while upholding later ones.

Reassessment notices under section 11-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act were confined to the specific assessment period concerned, because the power to reopen turnover was limited to three calendar years from the expiry of that period. On that period-wise construction, the earlier notices were time-barred and without jurisdiction, while the later notices fell within limitation and were valid. Strict construction of the taxing statute was applied in favour of the taxpayer. Use of account books already in the taxing authority's possession for reassessment did not amount to testimonial compulsion, so Article 20(3) was not infringed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the re-assessment notices issued under section 11-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 were within limitation and within jurisdiction for all assessment periods; (ii) Whether seizure and use of the applicant's account books in re-assessment proceedings violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the re-assessment notices issued under section 11-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 were within limitation and within jurisdiction for all assessment periods.

Analysis: Section 11-A authorises reassessment only where turnover in a particular period has been under-assessed or escaped assessment, and the power must be exercised within three calendar years from the expiry of that period. The liability under the Act is period-wise, and the prior assessments had been made separately for distinct periods. The expression "such period" was therefore read with reference to the specific assessment period under scrutiny, not as one continuous span from 1 June 1947 to 18 October 1952. Applying that construction, only the notices relating to the last two periods fell within time. The taxing statute was also construed strictly in favour of the taxpayer.

Conclusion: The first four re-assessment notices were without jurisdiction, while the last two were within jurisdiction and valid.

Issue (ii): Whether seizure and use of the applicant's account books in re-assessment proceedings violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Reassessment and prosecution are distinct proceedings. The mere use of account books already in the hands of the taxing authority for reassessment did not amount to compelling the applicant to be a witness against himself. Article 20(3) protects against testimonial compulsion, but that protection was not attracted to the reassessment process on the facts presented.

Conclusion: No violation of Article 20(3) was made out.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded only in part, resulting in prohibition against reassessment action on the earlier notices and no relief in respect of the later notices.

Ratio Decidendi: In reassessment proceedings under a taxing statute, limitation tied to "the expiry of such period" must be applied period-wise to the specific assessment period concerned, and the strict construction rule requires ambiguity to be resolved in favour of the taxpayer.

---