Limitation cannot be implied into penal default and best judgment sales tax proceedings absent express statutory provision.

Limitation from section 11(2) and section 11-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 could not be imported by analogy into proceedings under section 10(3) read with section 11(4)(a) for failure to furnish returns in time. The court treated section 10(3) as penal in character and section 11(4)(a) as a summary best judgment assessment for non-compliance, and held that the earlier limitation reasoning for fresh assessment proceedings was inapplicable. In a taxing statute, no limitation period can be implied where the Legislature has not expressly provided one, so the notices were valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the period of limitation applicable to reassessment proceedings under section 11(2) and section 11-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 could be imported by analogy into proceedings under section 10(3) read with section 11(4)(a) for failure to furnish returns in time, so as to invalidate the notices issued to the dealers.

Analysis: The notices under challenge were issued not for initiating a first assessment, but for proceeding against a registered dealer who had failed to furnish returns within the prescribed time. Proceedings under section 10(3) were treated as penal in character, directed to imposing a penalty for default, while proceedings under section 11(4)(a) were treated as a summary best judgment assessment triggered by non-compliance. The reasoning in the earlier Full Bench decision, which read a three-year limitation into section 11(2) because that provision involved the initiation of fresh assessment proceedings and because section 11-A expressly limited escaped assessments, was held inapplicable. The Act was construed strictly, and no limitation period could be implied into sections 10(3) or 11(4)(a) where the Legislature had not provided one.

Conclusion: The limitation principle from section 11(2) and section 11-A did not apply to notices issued under section 10(3) read with section 11(4)(a); the notices were valid.

Ratio Decidendi: In a taxing statute, limitation cannot be imported by analogy into a penal default proceeding or a best judgment assessment unless the statute itself expressly provides for it.

---