Best judgment assessment and accrued penalty liability under a repealed tax law were upheld despite repeal and savings objections.

Refusal of a further adjournment was treated as a discretionary procedural decision, and where earlier adjournments had already been granted and the dealer failed to produce account books, resort to best judgment assessment was justified; the assessment was upheld. The article also states that filing an incorrect return under the repealed sales tax law attracted penalty when the default occurred, and the repeal-and-savings clause preserved that accrued liability even if it was quantified later. The absence of an identical penalty provision in the new Act was held immaterial, and the penalty under the repealed Act was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refusal of a further adjournment and resort to best judgment assessment were vitiated by jurisdictional error. (ii) Whether the penalty for filing incorrect returns could validly be imposed under the repealed sales tax law by reason of the repeal and savings provision.

Issue (i): Whether refusal of a further adjournment and resort to best judgment assessment were vitiated by jurisdictional error.

Analysis: The dealer had already obtained adjournments on earlier occasions. On the date fixed, the karta was aware of the hearing and there was nothing to prevent production of account books through agents. The refusal of a further adjournment was a matter of discretion, and no mala fides or capricious exercise of power was shown. On those facts, the officer was justified in closing the proceedings and proceeding to assess to the best of his judgment when the account books were not produced.

Conclusion: The challenge to the best judgment assessment failed and the assessment order was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty for filing incorrect returns could validly be imposed under the repealed sales tax law by reason of the repeal and savings provision.

Analysis: Under the repealed sales tax law, a registered dealer was bound to file quarterly returns, and the obligation necessarily carried with it an obligation to file correct returns. The liability to penalty arose when an incorrect return was filed, even though the falsity of the return might be determined later. The repeal and savings provision preserved liabilities already incurred under the repealed Act, and the later assessment date did not displace that liability. The absence of an identical penalty provision in the new Act was immaterial.

Conclusion: The penalty was validly imposed under the repealed Act and the jurisdictional challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition did not disclose any ground for interference under Article 226, and the assessment as well as the penalty were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A liability to penalty under a repealed taxing statute is incurred when the statutory default occurs, and a repeal-and-savings clause preserves that accrued liability even if its determination and enforcement occur after repeal.

---