1980 (12) TMI 177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 33,392.93. Mr. G. Narayanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, takes two contentions before me: (1) for the years 1951-52 to 1954-55 the assessments were made under rule 16(2) of the Rules framed under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. Mr. G. Narayanan submits that this rule has been struck down as ultra vires by this Court in A. Abdul Shukoor v. Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Madras (W.P. No. 1487 of 1964). Consequently, the learned counsel contends that the orders of assessment for the years 1951-52 to 1954-55, though passed earlier, became ab initio void by reason of the decision of this Court striking down rule 16(2) on the basis of which these assessments were made; (2) the assessment for the year 195....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n est. No direct precedent has been placed before me to show that notwithstanding the fact that rule 16(2) has been struck down by this Court, the assessment orders passed earlier on the basis of the ultra vires rule could be enforced. The learned Government Pleader cited a decision of Ramaprasada Rao, J., as he then was, in Kuppuswami Chettiar v. State of Madras [1971] 28 STC 570. The learned Judge has held in the said decision that if an assessee had not availed himself of the statutory remedy of appealing against an original order of assessment and that has been corrected in a higher forum, the order of assessment became final. However, Mr. Lokapriya himself admitted that the learned Judge was concerned with an order of assessment, which....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such fine, penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed, as if this Act had not been passed.' " This is, therefore, a straight answer to the non-availability of the taxing power with the taxing authorities to get into the net of taxation the dealings of a dissolved firm which was functioning when the 1939 Act was in force. We said extrinsically also because the order of the Tribunal is unassailable, for the principle had been laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate [1966] 17 STC 326 (SC) where the court said that unless there is a statutory pr....