Statutory interpretation of "period" under sales tax law extended limitation to the full liability span of an unregistered dealer.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court construed "period" in section 11(5) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 to mean the entire span during which an unregistered dealer remained liable to tax and wilfully failed to apply for registration. The Court rejected the dealer's reliance on quarterly return practice, holding that rules cannot control the statute and that the provision must be read to suppress evasion. Applying that interpretation, the Court held that the three-year limitation ran from the end of the whole liability period, so the assessment made on 2 June 1955 was within time and no part of it was barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the word "period" in section 11(5) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 means the whole period during which an unregistered dealer was liable to pay tax and wilfully failed to apply for registration, or only a shorter interval such as a quarter. (ii) Whether any part of the assessment made on 2nd June, 1955 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the word "period" in section 11(5) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 means the whole period during which an unregistered dealer was liable to pay tax and wilfully failed to apply for registration, or only a shorter interval such as a quarter.

Analysis: The expression "period" is not defined in the Act. The liability provisions in section 4 show that once liability to tax arises, it continues for the relevant span until it ceases in accordance with the Act, and the Act does not prescribe any fixed period for assessment. The construction suggested by the dealer, based on quarterly returns under the rules, was rejected because rules cannot control the meaning of the statute. The provision is directed against evasion and must be read so as to advance the remedy and suppress the mischief.

Conclusion: The word "period" means the whole period during which the dealer has been liable to pay tax under the Act and has wilfully failed to apply for registration. It does not mean a lesser interval of time, and the answer is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether any part of the assessment made on 2nd June, 1955 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The limitation of three calendar years under section 11(5) has to be computed from the expiry of the entire period during which the dealer remained liable and failed to seek registration. On that construction, the assessment made on 2nd June, 1955 fell within time.

Conclusion: No part of the assessment made on 2nd June, 1955 was barred by limitation, and the answer is against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the revenue, with the dealer held liable for costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In a provision aimed at evasion by an unregistered dealer, "period" denotes the entire span of liability to tax during which registration was wilfully not sought, and limitation runs from the end of that entire span.

---