Fresh forfeiture notice, limitation principles, and tax collection wording upheld under sales tax forfeiture law.

A forfeiture proceeding under the sales tax law could be recommenced by fresh notice after the earlier order was set aside for a defective prescribed form of notice, because the procedural defect did not extinguish the authority to act again. In the absence of an express limitation period, forfeiture was not barred by analogy to reassessment limits, though it had to be pursued within a reasonable time; on the record, the delay objection failed. Amounts shown in the bills were treated as collected as sales tax, not mere reimbursement, and therefore fell within the forfeiture provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a fresh forfeiture proceeding could be initiated after the earlier forfeiture order was set aside for a procedural defect in notice; (ii) whether an order of forfeiture under the sales tax law was barred by limitation or had to be made within a reasonable time; (iii) whether the amounts collected in the bills were collected as tax within the meaning of the Act.

Issue (i): whether a fresh forfeiture proceeding could be initiated after the earlier forfeiture order was set aside for a procedural defect in notice.

Analysis: The earlier forfeiture order had been set aside because the notice in the prescribed form was defective and did not satisfy the procedural requirement. That defect was subsequently cured by issuing a fresh notice in the amended form. A defect of this kind does not create immunity from forfeiture or exhaust the authority to proceed afresh.

Conclusion: The fresh forfeiture proceeding was valid and the objection to jurisdiction failed, against the applicant.

Issue (ii): whether an order of forfeiture under the sales tax law was barred by limitation or had to be made within a reasonable time.

Analysis: The Act did not prescribe any specific period of limitation for passing a forfeiture order. A limitation period applicable to reassessment could not be imported by analogy into forfeiture proceedings. At most, the proceeding had to be initiated and concluded within a reasonable time, but the belated challenge on unreasonable delay was not open on the record as framed before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The forfeiture order was not barred by limitation, and the delay objection did not succeed, against the applicant.

Issue (iii): whether the amounts collected in the bills were collected as tax within the meaning of the Act.

Analysis: The wording used in the bills indicated that the amounts were being collected in relation to sales tax payable on the applicant's sales to its customers. The expression used could not reasonably be understood as merely reimbursement of tax paid to the manufacturers.

Conclusion: The amounts were collected as tax for the purpose of the forfeiture provision, against the applicant.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the Revenue, and the order of forfeiture was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A forfeiture proceeding under the sales tax law may be recommenced by a fresh notice where the earlier notice was procedurally defective, and in the absence of an express statutory limitation, forfeiture cannot be invalidated merely by analogy to reassessment limits; amounts collected by a dealer in a manner that indicates collection as sales tax fall within the forfeiture provision.

---