Prescribed Form Requirement Is Directory Where Assessment Was Made Within Limitation And Substantial Compliance Was Shown

An assessment order passed within the prescribed limitation period was not void merely because it was not drawn up in the prescribed form under the sales tax rules. The court treated the form requirement as directory, not mandatory, and held that substantial compliance was sufficient even though the rule used the word "shall." Because the assessment was in fact made within five years, the proceedings were not time-barred and the defect in form did not render the order a nullity. The challenge to the assessment therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessment order passed within the prescribed limitation period was rendered a nullity because it was not drawn up in the prescribed form under the sales tax rules, and whether the assessment proceedings were therefore barred by time.

Analysis: The assessment order was passed within five years, which was the then applicable limitation period. The objection based on the absence of the prescribed form was rejected because the record showed substantial compliance with the requirements of the form. The requirement to use the prescribed form was treated as directory, notwithstanding the use of the word "shall" in the rule, and the absence of the form did not by itself make the assessment void or illegal. Since the order of assessment had in fact been made within time, the proceedings could not be treated as time-barred.

Conclusion: The assessment order was not a nullity, and the assessment proceedings were not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the challenge to the assessment on the ground of defective form and limitation was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory requirement as to form is directory and there is substantial compliance, an assessment order passed within limitation is not void merely because it was not made in the prescribed form.

---