Limitation on reassessment notices bars late initiation, but formal assessment on a filed return may proceed without an express time limit.

A notice initiating reassessment under section 11(2) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act was treated as the real commencement of fresh proceedings, so it had to be issued within the statute's three-year limit for escaped assessment; issuing it later was barred. By contrast, an assessment under section 11(1) on a duly filed return and tax already paid was only a formal acceptance of the declared liability, created no fresh liability, and was not subject to any implied three-year limitation because the provision contained none. The text therefore distinguishes reassessment-type action from formal assessment and applies limitation only where the statute expressly or necessarily requires it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a notice under section 11(2) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 could be issued more than three years after the expiry of the period for which assessment was proposed; (ii) Whether an assessment under section 11(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 could be made more than three years after the expiry of such period.

Issue (i): Whether a notice under section 11(2) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 could be issued more than three years after the expiry of the period for which assessment was proposed.

Analysis: The notice under section 11(2) was treated as the real commencement of fresh assessment proceedings where the Commissioner was not satisfied with the return. Since the Act fixed a three-year limit for escaped assessment under section 11-A, permitting a notice under section 11(2) beyond that period would indirectly achieve what the statute forbade directly. The notice therefore had to be issued within three years.

Conclusion: No. A notice under section 11(2) beyond three years was barred.

Issue (ii): Whether an assessment under section 11(1) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 could be made more than three years after the expiry of such period.

Analysis: Where a registered dealer had already furnished the return and paid the tax due under the Act, an order under section 11(1) was only a formal act accepting the tax already paid. It did not create any fresh liability and did not amount to escaped assessment. As the Legislature had not prescribed any limitation for section 11(1), no three-year limit could be imported into that provision.

Conclusion: Yes. An assessment under section 11(1) could be made beyond three years.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were partially controlled by limitation: the reassessment-type notice was invalid after three years, but the formal assessment on a duly filed return and paid tax was not time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute separately provides a limitation period for escaped assessment, that limitation governs the initiation of fresh assessment proceedings under the dissatisfied-return provision, but it cannot be read into a provision that merely authorises a formal assessment on an already filed return and paid tax when the statute has prescribed no express time limit.

---