TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1959 (7) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... chosen this year for the purpose of the sales tax. Accordingly the year 1952-53 was for purposes of accounting from 19th October, 1952, to 6th November, 1953, and the year 1953-54 was from 7th November, 1953, to 26th October, 1954. During both these years the petitioner filed before the Sales Tax Officer, Gondia Circle, (respondent No. 1 in both the petitions), quarterly returns, but those returns were blank, as according to the petitioner no sale having taken place within the Vidarbha region he was not liable to pay any amount by way of sales tax under the Act. It appears that both these cases were taken together by the Sales Tax Officer though separate orders in each case were passed. On 20th July, 1955, the Sales Tax Officer issued two notices in respect of the two years under sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act to the petitioner calling upon him: "(i) to produce evidence or have it produced in support of the returns; (ii) to produce or cause to be produced accounts, registers, cash memoranda, or other documents out of those shown in the appended list". The cases were then heard and it appears that on 23rd December, 1955, Mr. S.N. Agarwal, agent of the petitioner, ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t which these two petitions are filed. Mr. Dhabe, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the notices of date 20th July, 1955, have no validity in the eye of law. Admittedly, the Sales Tax Officer himself held that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the cases and has transferred the cases to the Assistant Commissioner on 23rd December, 1955. The notices of 20th July, 1955, given by the Sales Tax Officer have, therefore, no legal validity and no proceedings could be founded on the basis of those notices. The only notices which are legal and valid, according to Mr. Dhabe, are the notices of 4th July, 1958. Those notices were given after a period of three years, are therefore bad in law and no proceedings could be founded on the strength of those notices. Reliance is placed in support of this contention on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Bisesar House v. State of Bombay(1). Mr. Abhyankar for the respondents contends that the notices of date 20th July, 1955, are valid. The Sales Tax Officer had jurisdiction to deal with the cases. It has not been shown by the petitioner that the Sales Tax Officer was incompetent on 20th July, 1955, to deal with the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner and issue the notices of that date. Sub-section (2) of section 3 provides that persons appointed under sub-section (1) (the Sales Tax Officer is one of such persons), shall, within such areas as the State Government may specify, exercise such powers as may be conferred and perform such duties as may be imposed, by or under the Act. In exercise of these powers certain rules have been framed. Clause (1) of rule 19 provides that every registered dealer shall furnish to the appropiate Sales Tax Officer quarterly returns in the prescribed form within one calendar month from the expirty of the quarter to which the return relates. Rule 57 prescribes the powers which could be exercised by the various persons appointed by the State Government under sub-section (1) of section 3. The entry relevant to this case is entry No. 8. The relevant part thereof, as it then stood, reads as follows:- Sr.No. Section Description of power Designation of officer and conditions of delegation. 8 11, 1112 and 12-A To make an assessment or re-assessment of tax for payment of such tax or penalty or to allow the payment of tax or penalty by instalments and to exercise all other powers under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition obtaining on the material on record on 20th July, 1955. Further, this is only a statement of an agent made in the case. It does not mean that it is true. In these circumstances and on these facts, in our opinion, the Sales Tax Officer had jurisdiction to deal with the petitioner's case and issue notices under section 11(2) to him on 20th July, 1955. Proceedings initiated on those notices were, therefore, validly started. These notices were issued within a period of three years. The petitioner was made aware within a period of three years that the Sales Tax Officer was not satisfied with the returns filed by him and that he would have to satisfy the Sales Tax Officer about the correctness of the returns or otherwise would have to pay tax in respect of the taxable turnover during those years. The petitioner was thus proceeded against within three years of the expiry of the periods for which he is being assessed. The Full Bench decision, in our opinion, has therefore no application to the facts of the case. Mr. Dhabe then argues that the Sales Tax Officer having transferred the cases to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax on 23rd December, 1955, on the basis of the petiti....