Limitation and revisional power in sales tax assessment: fresh notice beyond time-bar was invalid, and the deposited amount had to be refunded.

A revisional order under section 39(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act could not be used to start fresh proceedings before a different authority, so section 20(1) did not displace the six-year limitation under section 18(6). A notice for fresh assessment and penalty issued beyond that limit was therefore without jurisdiction and invalid. Because the tax deposit was made only pursuant to the set-aside assessment order and no lawful basis existed to retain it, the deposited amount was held refundable. The Court also treated writ relief as appropriate where entitlement to refund was clear and a civil suit would be an unduly cumbersome remedy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a notice for fresh assessment and penalty under section 18(6) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 could be issued for a period beyond six years when the Commissioner had set aside the earlier assessment and sent the matter to the Sales Tax Officer. (ii) Whether the amount of Rs. 7,000 deposited pursuant to the Commissioner's order was liable to be refunded.

Issue (i): Whether a notice for fresh assessment and penalty under section 18(6) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 could be issued for a period beyond six years when the Commissioner had set aside the earlier assessment and sent the matter to the Sales Tax Officer.

Analysis: The limitation bar under section 18(6) was not displaced by section 20(1), because the Commissioner's order did not amount to a valid order under section 39(1). A revisional authority may act on the record before it and pass an order thereon subject to the Act, but it cannot use revisional power to initiate fresh proceedings before a different authority. A purported remand to a new authority was treated as outside the scope of section 39(1), and therefore the subsequent notice could not be justified as one issued in consequence of, or to give effect to, a finding or direction under section 39.

Conclusion: The notice under section 18(6) was without jurisdiction and could not override the statutory limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount of Rs. 7,000 deposited pursuant to the Commissioner's order was liable to be refunded.

Analysis: The deposit was made only because of the Commissioner's order, and the underlying assessment had already been set aside. Since the subsequent notice itself was invalid and no legal basis was shown for retaining the amount, the continued withholding was without authority of law. The availability of a civil suit did not preclude relief under article 226 when the entitlement was clear and refund through suit would be cumbersome.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to refund of the deposited amount.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in full, the impugned notice was quashed, and refund of the deposited sum was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional order under section 39(1) cannot be used to initiate fresh proceedings before a different authority, and an assessment notice issued beyond the limitation period cannot be validated by treating such an order as one made in consequence of, or to give effect to, a finding or direction under section 20(1).

---