Sales Tax Officer must decide objections judicially under M.P. Sales Tax Act 1958, emphasizing fair process and timely decisions.

The court held that the Sales Tax Officer must judicially decide the objections raised by the petitioner regarding the validity of the notice issued under section 18(6) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The court emphasized the importance of providing reasoned orders and criticized the delay in decision-making by the Sales Tax Authorities. The case was remanded back to the Sales Tax Officer for proper adjudication of the objections, ensuring a fair process for the petitioner and ordering the refund of the outstanding security deposit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under section 18(6) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
2. Barred by limitation under section 11(5) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947.
3. Proper consideration of objections raised by the petitioner by the Sales Tax Officer.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash a notice issued under section 18(6) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid due to alleged failure to apply for registration. The Sales Tax Officer's order on 13th December, 1962, did not adequately address the petitioner's objection regarding the limitation period, as it merely stated that the case was not barred by limitation without a proper judicial decision. The court held that the Sales Tax Officer must judicially decide the objection raised by the petitioner and provide a reasoned order, as the current order was insufficient to determine the validity of the notice.

2. The petitioner argued that the proceedings initiated under section 18(6) of the Act were time-barred under section 11(5) of the repealed Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The respondent contended that the notice issued was within the limitation period as per section 52 of the Act, which allows for a six-year limitation for commencing proceedings. The court did not delve into the merits of these contentions due to the Sales Tax Officer's failure to provide a proper decision on the objection raised by the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of a judicial determination on such objections and directed the Sales Tax Officer to reconsider the objections raised by the petitioner.

3. The court criticized the practice of Sales Tax Authorities in delaying the decision on preliminary objections raised by taxpayers or deciding them hastily without proper consideration. The court emphasized the need for a thorough and judicial consideration of objections raised by taxpayers and highlighted the importance of recording reasoned decisions. The Sales Tax Officer was directed to reconsider the objections raised by the petitioner in a proper and judicial manner, ensuring a fair process for the petitioner. The court remanded the case back to the Sales Tax Officer for a proper adjudication of the objections and ordered the refund of the outstanding security deposit to the petitioner.

---