Quarterly returns and packed charges under tax assessment: repeal did not invalidate returns, and exemption required proof of non-collection.

Quarterly returns filed in the prescribed form under the assessment scheme remained usable for assessment even after repeal of rule 21, because their validity was not destroyed by the later repeal. The assessment was supportable under the regular assessment provision, so the special limitation for escaped assessment under section 12-A did not apply. Packing charges included in taxable turnover required separate factual examination under section 10 of Central Act 28 of 1969, because the exemption depended on proof that no tax had been collected on those charges. The matter on packing charges was remitted for re-examination by the assessing authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether quarterly returns filed under rule 21, after repeal of the rule, could still be treated as valid returns forming the basis of assessment and whether the assessment was barred by limitation under section 12-A; (ii) whether packing charges included in the taxable turnover were liable to be excluded on the ground that no tax had been collected thereon under section 10 of the Central Act 28 of 1969.

Issue (i): Whether quarterly returns filed under rule 21, after repeal of the rule, could still be treated as valid returns forming the basis of assessment and whether the assessment was barred by limitation under section 12-A.

Analysis: The quarterly returns were filed in the prescribed form and could be acted upon for assessment. The fact that rule 21 was later repealed did not destroy the returns already filed and accepted. The statutory scheme of section 12 permitted assessment on the basis of a correct and complete return, and where the return was not accepted the assessing authority could proceed to best judgment assessment. Since the assessment was supportable under section 12, the special limitation applicable to escaped assessment under section 12-A did not govern the case.

Conclusion: The assessment could validly proceed on the basis of the quarterly returns, and the plea of limitation under section 12-A failed.

Issue (ii): Whether packing charges included in the taxable turnover were liable to be excluded on the ground that no tax had been collected thereon under section 10 of the Central Act 28 of 1969.

Analysis: The earlier rejection of this claim did not finally answer the statutory question under section 10. The dealer asserted that no tax had been collected on the packing charges, and the exemption depended on proof of that fact. The matter therefore required factual examination by the assessing authority, with opportunity to produce evidence, before the benefit of the exemption could be denied or granted.

Conclusion: The claim for exclusion of packing charges was to be re-examined by the assessing authority, and the dealer was entitled to seek the statutory benefit if non-collection of tax was proved.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions succeeded only to the extent of the packing-charge issue, while the challenge to the validity of the assessment on the basis of quarterly returns and the plea of limitation was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee has filed prescribed quarterly returns under the statutory assessment scheme, those returns may constitute a valid basis for assessment notwithstanding later repeal of the enabling rule, and limitation for escaped assessment does not apply if the assessment is otherwise referable to the regular assessment provision; exemption dependent on non-collection of tax requires factual proof before the assessing authority.

---