TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1959 (7) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20,00,000 to the turnover, and subject the same to sales tax at the rate of one anna in a rupee. A similar notice was also issued on the same day in respect of the year 1949-50. The assessees then applied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming a writ in the nature of certiorari or other writ, direction or order against the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax calling for the records relating to the assessment, re-assessment or revision of assessment of the assessees for the assessment years 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50, and, after making enquiries and looking into the matter, setting aside the notices issued by the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax. The assessees also claimed a writ in the nature of prohibition or mandamus or other writ or direction prohibiting or restraining the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax and his successors in office from taking any action or proceeding for assessment, re-assessment or revision of assessment of the assessees in respect of the assessment years 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50 and from enforcing the notices. The Assistant Collector of Sales Tax, who has appeared before us in pursuance of the notice, has challenged the right of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assistant Collector of Sales Tax. The Assistant Collector of Sales Tax had authority under the Act of 1946 to issue notices of the nature of the impugned notices. Even assuming that the notices had to be issued in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act of 1946, in the absence of any indication in the body of the notices that they were intended to be issued under the Act of 1953 and not under the Act of 1946, the notices were not unauthorised. By sub-section (1) of section 48 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, was repealed. By sub-section (3) it is provided that the repeal does not affect or will not be deemed to affect any right, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred, and also the recovery of any tax or penalty which may have become payable under the Act of 1946; and that such taxes or penalties or arrears thereof shall be assessed, imposed and recovered, so far as they may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1953. Evidently by virtue of the provisions contained in the Sales Tax Act, 1946, the assessees, for any evasion of tax, incurred an obligation to pay that tax, liability to pay which had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hree years as prescribed. By section 22 power was conferred upon the Collector, subject to the rules which may be prescribed and for reasons to be recorded in writing, either upon application or of his own motion, to revise any order passed under the Act or the rules made thereunder by a person appointed under section 3 to assist him. By this provision authority was evidently conferred upon the Collector to revise the orders of his subordinates who were authorised to act as Sales Tax Officers, but the Legislature did not prescribe any period for revising the orders of the subordinate authorities when the Collector proceeded suo motu. Under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, the corresponding provision relating to the making of returns was section 13; the provision relating to the assessment of taxes was section 14 and the provision relating to the issue of notice and re-assessment of dealers in respect of turnover escaping assessment was section 15. By section 31 authority was conferred upon the Collector, subject to the rules prescribed and for reasons to be recorded in writing, to revise the orders passed under the Act or the rules made thereunder by a person appointed under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of this Court held that even though no period of limitation was prescribed for issue of a notice under section 11(2) of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, calling for a return from a dealer, because an order for re-assessment under section 11A may not be made after the expiry of three years, the notice under section 11(2) issued more than three years after the expiry of the period for which it was proposed to make the assessment was incompetent. Chagla, C.J., who delivered the judgment of the Court in that case, applied the principle of the case in Commissioner of Income-tax v. v. Narsee Nagsee & Co.[1957] 31 I.T.R. 164., to the interpretation of section 11 of the Central Pravinces and Berar Sales Tax Act. In both the aforesaid cases the Court took the view that even though not expressly prescribed, a period of limitation for the issue of a notice calling for a return must be regarded as implied when the Legislature has prescribed a period of limitation for re-assessment of escaped income. In neither of those two cases revisional powers were sought to be exercised, but the principle of those cases must, in our judgment, apply for the same reasons to the exercise o....