TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (9) TMI 593
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te No. 550. The period of assessment in question is June 1, 1968 to May 31, 1969. Petitioner was assessed to sales tax by respondent No. 1 by order dated June 30, 1972 determining the tax at Rs. 88,079. Penalties were also imposed under sections 17(3) and 43(1) of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively. For not submitting the stock list, penalty of Rs. 50 was further imposed in accordance with the provisions of rule 69-A of the M.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1959. Thus the total amount inclusive of penalty was Rs. 98,759. The petitioner paid the tax amount of Rs. 68,764 along with quarterly return and thus the balance remaining in accordance with the aforesaid order was determined at Rs. 29,996. 3.. Aggrieved by the order of re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4.. Respondent No. 3, Commissioner of Sales Tax, being dissatisfied with the order of the Board of Revenue, moved an application under section 44(1) of the Act before the court for making a reference to the High Court, but it was rejected on April 22, 1981. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 did not abide by the directions contained in the order passed by the Board of Revenue in second appeal; the order should have been complied with within the prescribed period, but no such compliance appears to have been made. The petitioner has challenged sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Act which was introduced by Act No. 25 of 1978 with effect from October 1, 1978 to the extent that if fresh assessment has not been made within the period prescri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, proviso (a) was introduced in subsection (8) by Act No. 25 of 1978 with effect from October 1, 1978 . It reads as under: "18. Assessment of tax.-(1) The amount of tax due from a registered dealer shall be assessed separately for each year: .......................... (8) The assessment shall be made under this section- (i) in respect of a registered dealer and a dealer referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (6), within a period of two calendar years from the end of the period for which assessment is to be made; and (ii) in respect of a dealer who has failed to apply for registration, within a period of two calendar years from the commencement of proceedings under sub-section (6); provided that- (a) where a fre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to expeditiously dispose of the assessment. That means that the statutory period which is prescribed has been neutralised by an executive order of the Commissioner. The question is whether the statutory period laid down by the provisions of the Act can be nullified by an executive order of the Commissioner or not. In our opinion, that cannot be permitted. When the law has ordained the period of limitation, for implementation of directions given by the court within a period of two years then there is no going from this. The period of limitation has been prescribed in the statute and that statutory provision cannot be allowed to be nullified by an executive order of the Commissioner. The power to neutralise the statutory provision by an exec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... can also be open to judicial scrutiny. Moreso when under sub-section (9), power has been conferred on the State Government then what is rational of in conferring the same power on Commissioner. Therefore, we can legitimately infer that the State Government will not exercise its power, but only in exceptional circumstances and that too by recording reasons and even the reasons can always be subjected to judicial scrutiny. Therefore, the power under sub-section (9) is for a very specific purpose and the same has already been upheld by this Court. 8.. It looks very anomalous that on one hand the provision confers a statutory period of limitation and in the same breath, it has been taken away by executive power. The power has already been r....