1979 (8) TMI 199 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Writ petition dismissed for limitation issue, lack of relief sought. No costs awarded. Unique circumstances.

The court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner could not raise the issue of limitation in writ proceedings and did not seek specific relief for ... - Issues Involved:1. Delay in filing the writ petition regarding notices (exhibits 1, 2, and 3).2. Jurisdiction of the CTO to reassess under section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.3. Validity of notice (exhibit 3) under section 12 of the Act.4. Continuation of notice (exhibit 8) from notice (exhibit 3) and limitation.Issue-wise Analysis:1. Delay in Filing the Writ Petition:The court examined whether the writ petition should be dismissed due to delay concerning notices (exhibits 1, 2, and 3). The respondents argued that the petitioner did not claim specific relief regarding these notices and had submitted to the jurisdiction of the assessing authority by filing a reply. The court considered precedents where delay and laches barred relief, such as Purshottamdas Chowdhury v. Income-tax Officer and Bishnu Charan Mohanty v. State of Orissa. However, the court also noted that in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, as discussed in Girindranath Paul v. Income-tax Officer, delay does not bar a writ of prohibition. Since the assessment proceedings were still pending and there was a patent lack of jurisdiction, the court held that delay was not a bar to the present writ petition.2. Jurisdiction of the CTO:The court addressed whether the petitioner could raise the objection of limitation regarding notice (exhibit 8) before the CTO. The respondents cited cases like Lalji Haridas v. Income-tax Officer and Income-tax Officer, Kottayam v. R.M. Subramania Iyer, which held that such objections should be raised before the assessing authority and not in writ proceedings. The court agreed with this view, stating that the question of limitation under section 12 of the Act is within the jurisdiction and competence of the CTO. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to raise this issue in a writ petition.3. Validity of Notice (Exhibit 3):The court considered whether notice (exhibit 3) substantially complied with section 12 of the Act. The respondents conceded that notices (exhibits 1 and 2) were not in the prescribed form. However, they argued that notice (exhibit 3) was in substantial compliance with section 12, even if not in the prescribed form S.T. 12A under rule 55A of the Rules. The court did not express an opinion on the validity of these notices or whether notice (exhibit 8) was a continuation of notice (exhibit 3) because the petitioner did not seek relief for quashing the earlier notices in the writ petition.4. Continuation of Notice (Exhibit 8):The court examined whether notice (exhibit 8) was in continuation of notice (exhibit 3) and thus within the limitation period. The respondents argued that the proceedings had already commenced with the issue of notice (exhibit 1) and that notice (exhibit 8) was a continuation. The court did not decide on this issue due to the petitioner's failure to seek relief for quashing the earlier notices.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the petitioner could not raise the question of limitation in writ proceedings and did not seek specific relief for quashing the earlier notices. The court did not award costs due to the peculiar circumstances of the case.Judgment:Petition dismissed.