TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the revision of assessment for application of a wrong rate of tax was governed by section 22-B of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, or by section 11-A of that Act or the corresponding provisions of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. (ii) Whether the revision proceedings were barred by limitation.
Issue (i): Whether the revision of assessment for application of a wrong rate of tax was governed by section 22-B of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, or by section 11-A of that Act or the corresponding provisions of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
Analysis: The assessment period was governed by the repealed C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. Under that Act, section 22-B conferred on the Commissioner the power to suo motu revise an assessment prejudicial to revenue, while section 11-A dealt with escaped turnover and empowered only the assessing authority to act. The corresponding provisions under the 1958 Act, namely section 39(2) for revision and section 19(1) for escaped turnover, followed the same distinction. As the impugned action was taken by the Additional Commissioner and not by the assessing authority, it could not be treated as proceedings under section 11-A of the old Act or section 19(1) of the new Act.
Conclusion: The revision was relatable to section 22-B of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, and not to section 11-A of that Act or section 19(1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
Issue (ii): Whether the revision proceedings were barred by limitation.
Analysis: Section 22-B of the 1947 Act permitted suo motu revision only within two years from the date of the order sought to be revised. The proceedings were initiated beyond that period. The longer limitation under section 39(2) of the 1958 Act could not be applied to a matter governed by the repealed Act.
Conclusion: The revision proceedings were barred by time under section 22-B of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that the Commissioner's revision power arose under the repealed Act and that the proceedings were time-barred, while the third question did not arise for decision.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the original assessment is governed by a repealed sales tax enactment, the Commissioner's suo motu revision must be tested under the revisional provision of that enactment, and the limitation attached to that provision cannot be displaced by the successor Act or by provisions relating to escaped assessment, which are confined to action by the assessing authority.
TaxTMI 
