Yearly assessment period under sales tax law runs separately, and sugarcane sales tax is not barred by the Control Act.

For assessment of an unregistered dealer under section 13(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, the expression "period" is construed as a one-year assessment unit, not a single block covering all years of default, so liability is assessed separately for each year. Limitation under section 13(6) begins only when assessment proceedings are actually initiated by notice to the dealer or by a voluntary return; a mere administrative direction is insufficient. On that basis, the notice dated 10 January 1962 marked commencement, and the earlier yearly assessments were time-barred. Section 29(1) of the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act does not exclude sales tax on sugarcane, as the cess and sales tax are distinct imposts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for assessment under section 13(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, the expression "period" means the entire block of default or a one-year unit, and when proceedings for assessment are initiated for the purpose of limitation under section 13(6); (ii) whether section 29(1) of the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937 bars levy of sales tax on the sale of sugarcane under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Issue (i): Whether, for assessment under section 13(5) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947, the expression "period" means the entire block of default or a one-year unit, and when proceedings for assessment are initiated for the purpose of limitation under section 13(6)

Analysis: The charging and return provisions of the Act treat liability and assessment on a yearly basis, and section 13(5) uses the expressions "such period" and "subsequent periods" without authorising amalgamation of all defaulted years into one single unit. The scheme of sections 4, 12 and 13, read with rule 22, shows that an unregistered dealer liable to tax is to be assessed separately for each year of default. As to initiation of proceedings, a mere administrative direction to issue notice does not commence assessment proceedings; proceedings begin only when the dealer is actually called upon by notice to submit to assessment, or when a return is voluntarily filed. Accordingly, the notice issued on 10 January 1962 was the relevant commencement date for limitation.

Conclusion: The expression "period" means one year, and proceedings were initiated on 10 January 1962. The assessment for 1 April 1955 to 31 March 1956 and 1 April 1956 to 31 March 1957 was barred by limitation, but the tribunal was correct on the date of initiation.

Issue (ii): Whether section 29(1) of the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937 bars levy of sales tax on the sale of sugarcane under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947

Analysis: The levy of cess under the Control Act and sales tax under the Sales Tax Act are distinct imposts under different legislative entries and can coexist. In any event, the record did not show any cess actually levied during the relevant period, so the question did not disclose a real conflict of levies.

Conclusion: Section 29(1) does not bar levy of sales tax on the sale of sugarcane under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Final Conclusion: The references were answered by holding that the assessment was partly time-barred for the earlier yearly periods, while the challenge based on the Control Act failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For unregistered dealers assessed under section 13(5), "period" signifies a yearly assessment unit and limitation runs separately for each such year from the date proceedings are actually initiated by notice or voluntary return, while a separate cess under another enactment does not, by itself, exclude sales tax on the same commodity.

---