Court issues writ prohibiting opponents from acting on certain notices, upholds jurisdiction of others. No costs awarded.

The court partially allowed the application, issuing a writ prohibiting the opponents from taking action based on the first four notices dated 18th June 1954, which were found to be without jurisdiction. However, the court upheld the validity of the last two notices, which were within the jurisdiction. As the applicant partially succeeded and partially failed, no order as to costs was made, and the security deposit was ordered to be refunded after deducting costs payable by the applicant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of re-assessment notices.
2. Seizure and retention of account books.
3. Alleged violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
4. Supersession of earlier notices by subsequent notices.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Re-assessment Notices:
The principal contention was whether the re-assessment notices issued in form XII were within the jurisdiction of the authorities under Section 11-A(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The applicant argued that the notices were barred by time, while the opponents contended they were within the prescribed period.

The court examined the periods for which the applicant was assessed and the dates of the notices. It was determined that the first four notices dated 18th June 1954 were out of time, as they exceeded the three-year limitation from the expiry of the relevant periods. Conversely, the last two notices fell within the permissible timeframe and were deemed valid. The court concluded that the first four notices were without jurisdiction, while the last two were valid and within jurisdiction.

2. Seizure and Retention of Account Books:
The applicant contended that the seizure and retention of his account books by the Sales Tax Inspector was illegal and contrary to Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, this contention was not pressed by the applicant during the proceedings. The court noted that these issues required factual evidence and that the applicant had not approached the Sales Tax Officer for the return of the seized books. Consequently, the court did not address these contentions in detail.

3. Alleged Violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution:
The applicant argued that the seizure of his account books and their use in re-assessment proceedings constituted a violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination. The court rejected this argument, stating that re-assessment proceedings and prosecution for a breach of the Sales Tax Act are distinct. The court held that the use of account books for re-assessment does not amount to testimonial compulsion and does not violate Article 20(3). The court emphasized that re-assessment requires relevant evidence, including account books, to determine the correct turnover.

4. Supersession of Earlier Notices by Subsequent Notices:
The applicant contended that the notices issued on 18th June 1954 were superseded by subsequent notices issued on 14th May 1956, 28th May 1956, and 23rd August 1956. The court examined the contents of the notices and found no indication that the later notices superseded the earlier ones. The court dismissed this contention, stating that the argument was unsupported by the notices themselves and could not be accepted based on the applicant's assertion alone.

Conclusion:
The court partially allowed the application, issuing a writ prohibiting the opponents from taking action based on the first four notices dated 18th June 1954, which were found to be without jurisdiction. However, the court upheld the validity of the last two notices, which were within the jurisdiction. As the applicant partially succeeded and partially failed, no order as to costs was made, and the security deposit was ordered to be refunded after deducting costs payable by the applicant.

Ordered accordingly.

---