Extended-period sales tax notice and limitation upheld where clerical error caused no prejudice and default period governed section 11(5).

A sales tax notice for the extended period was upheld because the incorrect terminal date was treated as a clerical error, the assessee was directed to produce accounts for the full assessed period, and the thirty-day requirement in the rule was read as directory in light of the word "ordinarily"; reasonable opportunity of hearing was therefore found sufficient. Section 11(5) was construed to mean that "period" covers the entire default period during which a dealer wilfully failed to register, not merely the quarterly return period. On that construction, the assessment was within limitation and not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice and subsequent assessment for the extended period were valid; (ii) Whether the assessment was barred by limitation under section 11(5) of the applicable sales tax law.

Issue (i): Whether the notice and subsequent assessment for the extended period were valid.

Analysis: The notice initially mentioned an earlier terminal date, but the assessing authority later directed the assessee to produce accounts for the full period ultimately assessed. The discrepancy was treated as a clerical error. The requirement of thirty days in the relevant rule was also treated as directory because the rule used the word "ordinarily". The assessment was upheld on the footing that a reasonable opportunity had been afforded.

Conclusion: The notice and assessment for the extended period were valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment was barred by limitation under section 11(5) of the applicable sales tax law.

Analysis: The word "period" in section 11(5) was construed as the entire period during which a dealer liable to tax wilfully failed to apply for registration, not as the quarterly return period. The later Supreme Court decision dealing with escaped assessment under a different provision did not alter that construction. On that interpretation, the assessment fell within time.

Conclusion: The assessment was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee, and the validity of the assessment was upheld in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 11(5), where a dealer has wilfully failed to register, "period" refers to the whole default period for which tax is due, and a notice or assessment is not invalid merely because it covers subsequent periods if a reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given.

---