TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (2) TMI 272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the period of limitation of five years as computed from 30th June, 1970, was barred by limitation in terms of clause (c) of section 35(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the longer period of limitation of eight years to start reassessment proceedings against the opponent under clause (b) of section 35(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, was not available to the department and in accordingly holding that the opponent's sales of groundnuts worth Rs. 1,07,376 as made to M/s. Shah Trading Company of Gondal against form 16 as prescribed under the Bombay Act of 1959, and the Rules framed thereunder, were not liable to levy of any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Gondal. In the light of the said certificate, the respondent-assessee was assessed in respect of its taxation liability under the Bombay Act. The learned Sales Tax Officer at the initial stage had allowed the respondentassessee to deduct the above sales made against form No. 16 under the provisions of clause (iii) of section 7(2) of the Bombay Act. Therefore, the learned Sales Tax Officer had not levied any general sales tax upon the respondent-assessee in respect of sales of groundnuts for Rs. 1,07,376 as made against form No. 16. But it appears that the sales tax department-the officer at Rajkot-came to the conclusion that M/s. Shah Trading Company of Gondal had merely held the certificate of registration as a dealer under the Bomb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a dealer duly holding a licence under the Bombay Act and that therefore the respondent-assessee had sold groundnuts to that dealer by accepting form No. 16. It appears that the respondentassessee also admitted before the Sales Tax Officer that before effecting the disputed sales to the abovenamed purchaser against form No. 16, the respondent had not made any inquiry as to whether the certificate issued by M/s. Shah Trading Company in form No. 16 was a genuine certificate or not. After having heard the respondent-assessee the department came to the conclusion that M/s. Shah Trading Company was really not a licensed dealer at any time and therefore the Sales Tax Officer had treated the above sales effected by the respondent-assessee to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had opened its case within a period of eight years to be computed from the end of the concerned relevant year, the department was justified in reassessing the respondent-assessee on the basis that the sales which were effected by the respondent-assessee should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the pecuniary liability under the Bombay Act. Under the circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax held that the Sales Tax Officer had rightly reassessed the respondent-assessee within a period of eight years and that the assessment proceedings were initiated within time and that therefore the order of reassessment was valid in law. Suffice it to say that no useful purpose was served even as a result of the respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
........................................." (Emphasis supplied) (It is not necessary to reproduce at this stage the rest of the section.) In the case before the Tribunal, it was an admitted fact that reassessment proceedings were initiated after the lapse of five years as stated and explained above. Under the circumstances, the short point which the Tribunal had to consider was whether the respondent-assessee had concealed such sales or purchases or any material particular relating thereto, or had knowingly furnished incorrect returns at any time within eight years to be computed from the end of the concerned relevant accounting year. From what has been stated above, it is clear to us that, in the instant case, the respondent-assessee prod....