https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128481 The Madhya Pradesh High Court construed "period" in section 11(5) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 to mean the entire span during which an unregistered dealer remained liable to tax and wilfully failed to apply for registration. The Court rejected the dealer's reliance on quarterly return practice, holding that rules cannot control the statute and that the provision must be read to suppress evasion. Applying that interpretation, the Court held that the three-year limitation ran from the end of the whole liability period, so the assessment made on 2 June 1955 was within time and no part of it was barred by limitation. en-us Wed, 02 May 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Apr 2013 13:04:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128481 The Madhya Pradesh High Court construed "period" in section 11(5) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 to mean the entire span during which an unregistered dealer remained liable to tax and wilfully failed to apply for registration. The Court rejected the dealer's reliance on quarterly return practice, holding that rules cannot control the statute and that the provision must be read to suppress evasion. Applying that interpretation, the Court held that the three-year limitation ran from the end of the whole liability period, so the assessment made on 2 June 1955 was within time and no part of it was barred by limitation. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 02 May 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128481