TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (2) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the recovery of the tax. The petitioner is a non-resident dealer having its principal place of business at Bangalore. It is not a registered dealer in the Kerala State. For the year 1957-58, a first notice dated 3rd March, 1960, was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125. This was followed by a notice dated 3rd June, 1960, calling upon the petitioner to s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal against the said order was dismissed by the order filed as exhibit P-4. 2.. In support of the prayer to quash exhibits P-3 and P-4, it was urged that as the notices in respect of the year 1957-58 were issued to the petitioner on 3rd March, 1960, and 3rd June, 1960, the proceedings which ultimately resulted in the assessment of the petitioner amounted to a case of ''escaped assessment" and wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.. The petitioner's counsel contended that in so far as the order exhibit P-3 was beyond the time-limit specified in the above rule, the proceedings are illegal and liable to be quashed. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur[1963] 14 S.T.C. 976., there was no controversy before me that the proceedings taken to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Pleader, so as to ensure obedience to, and compliance with, the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities. It appears to me that it is no longer open to the learned Government Pleader to construe rule 33 as contended by him, in view of the two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in State of Orissa v. Debaki Debi and Others[1964] 15 S.T.C. 153; A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1413. and Jaipuria Bro....