Scrutiny notice validity under sales tax law upheld despite multi-year coverage and mistaken printed statutory reference.

A notice issued for scrutiny of a dealer's returns under the Bombay Sales Tax Act was held valid despite covering more than one year, because the provision did not confine such notice to a single assessment year and separate yearly assessment requirements did not control its scope. The notice was also upheld despite a printed reference to sub-sections (6) and (7), as the document's substance clearly showed that it was intended as a notice under the scrutiny provision. An obvious mistaken reference in the form did not alter the notice's legal character or invalidate it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a notice issued under section 14(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 was invalid because it covered a period exceeding one year. (ii) Whether the notice was invalid because it contained an inadvertent reference to sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 14 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.

Issue (i): Whether a notice issued under section 14(3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 was invalid because it covered a period exceeding one year.

Analysis: Section 14(3) authorises the Collector to serve notice where he is not satisfied about the correctness and completeness of the returns furnished by a dealer and requires attendance or production of evidence in support of such returns. The provision contains no express restriction that the notice must be confined to a single year. Although section 14(1) requires assessment separately for each year, that requirement does not control the scope of the notice under section 14(3). The validity of the notice was therefore not affected merely because it related to a period longer than one year.

Conclusion: The notice was not bad on the ground that it covered a period exceeding one year.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice was invalid because it contained an inadvertent reference to sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 14 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.

Analysis: The notice was issued on a printed form and, although it mentioned sub-sections (6) and (7), its terms showed that it was intended to be issued under section 14(3). An inappropriate printed reference, not struck out by mistake, did not alter the substance or legal character of the notice. The notice remained valid as a notice under section 14(3).

Conclusion: The notice was not bad merely because it referred to sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 14.

Final Conclusion: The questions decided were answered against the assessee, and the notice supporting the assessment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice under a procedural assessment provision is not invalid merely because it covers more than one year or contains an obvious mistaken reference, so long as the statutory source and purpose of the notice are otherwise clear.

---