1959 (7) TMI 49 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds notice validity despite errors; dealers must pay Sales Tax Collector costs.

The High Court upheld the validity of a notice served on dealers for a period exceeding one year, despite clerical errors mentioning incorrect subsections ... - Issues:- Validity of notice covering a period exceeding one year- Validity of notice under sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 14- Requirement of notice under sub-section (3) of section 14 for a period of one year- Effect of failure to strike out inappropriate words from a noticeAnalysis:The case involved an application for reference to the High Court regarding certain questions arising from a judgment in Revision Applications. The notice in question was issued for two different periods but contained a clause mentioning sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 14, which was argued to render the notice invalid. The Tribunal dismissed the revision applications based on the contention that the notice was valid. The applicants proposed questions related to the validity of the notice, the mandatory provisions of the Act, and the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. After refining the questions, the High Court decided to refer them for decision.The High Court focused on two main periods for assessment and the validity of the notice served on the dealers. The contention raised was that the notice was invalid as it exceeded one year and was not issued under the correct sub-section of the Sales Tax Act. The notice required the dealers to appear and produce evidence for the period between November 1952 and March 1954. The argument that the notice under sub-section (3) should cover only a one-year period was dismissed by the Court, stating that the Act does not restrict the notice period. Additionally, the Court found that although the notice mentioned sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 14, it was intended to be issued under sub-section (3), making the notice valid despite the clerical error.In conclusion, the Court answered the questions related to the validity of the notice in the negative, emphasizing that the notice period exceeding one year and the mention of inappropriate sections did not invalidate the notice. The Court also noted that failure to strike out irrelevant words from a notice did not affect its validity. The assessment based on the notice was upheld, and the dealers were ordered to pay the costs of the Collector of Sales Tax.