TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the amendment introduced in section 11-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 by section 6 of the Bombay Sales Tax Laws (Validating Provisions and Amendment) Act, 1959 displaced the Full Bench ruling that the limitation in section 11-A applied to notices under section 11(2). (ii) Whether a notice under section 11(2) of the Act could be issued after the expiry of three years from the period of assessment.
Issue (i): Whether the amendment introduced in section 11-A of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 by section 6 of the Bombay Sales Tax Laws (Validating Provisions and Amendment) Act, 1959 displaced the Full Bench ruling that the limitation in section 11-A applied to notices under section 11(2).
Analysis: The amendment inserted a new sub-section making it plain that nothing in section 11-A(1) and (2) was to apply to proceedings, including notices, under section 11. The language also provided that the prior limitation should be treated as never having applied to such proceedings. The earlier Full Bench ruling had proceeded on the basis that the three-year limit in section 11-A could be imported into section 11(2). The amended text expressly negatived that basis and showed a legislative intention to remove the judicially imported limitation.
Conclusion: The amendment superseded the earlier Full Bench ruling, and the decision in Bisesar House was no longer good law on that point.
Issue (ii): Whether a notice under section 11(2) of the Act could be issued after the expiry of three years from the period of assessment.
Analysis: Since the amendment excluded the application of section 11-A to proceedings under section 11, the three-year limitation could no longer be imported into section 11(2). The validating provision applied both to pending and future proceedings and protected the validity of notices issued beyond three years on the ground that section 11-A was inconsistent with them. The result was that no period of limitation remained for notices under section 11(2) on that ground.
Conclusion: Yes, a notice under section 11(2) could be issued more than three years after the expiry of the relevant period.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the revenue, and the petitions failed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a validating amendment expressly excludes the application of a prior limitation provision to a class of proceedings and declares that the earlier provision was never applicable to them, the judicially imported limitation cannot continue to govern those proceedings, including future notices.
TaxTMI 
