TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (7) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice, the petitioner has been informed that the assessment for the year 1978-79 has already been completed thereby escaping some income on which the petitioner is liable to pay tax. The petitioner is a company carrying on business in manufacturing of coconut fibre cushions, mattresses, etc. Pursuant to the said notice, a suo motu revision under section 23(4)(a) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") read with rule 80 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947 (in short, "the Rules") was instituted and an order was passed therein on March 6, 1985. From the original records produced before us by the learned Additional Standing Counsel (Commercial Taxes), we find that the said order was signed by the concerned Assis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the due sense of responsibility and in public interest. The facts of this case disclose that while acting in exercise of the statutory power, the authority concerned has purportedly not kept in the mind these salutory principles. The action of the opposite parties concerned is certainly not reasonable in the facts stated above. Non-filing of the affidavit by the authorities concerned shows gross lethargic attitude on their part in the discharge of their duties even pursuant to court's directions. Now, coming to the question of legality of the said exercise, this court finds that the authorities are also guilty of acting in violation of the statutory provisions. In the case of K.C. Mohta v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax reported i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the said Explanation has retrospective operation. It is well-known that normally a statute operates prospectively. The Legislature in its plenary power can also legislate retrospectively, but in such cases the statute must say so or it must appear by necessary implication. (See Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay reported in AIR 1951 SC 128 at page 130). This principle has been subsequently reiterated by the honourable Supreme Court repeatedly. Applying the said principle to the aforesaid Explanation, this court cannot come to the conclusion that the Explanation operates retrospectively. Since the Explanation was introduced with effect from August 12, 1983 relying on the same the matter relating to escapement of tax for the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b-section (1) of section 11 and may proceed to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer in the manner laid down in sub-section (5) of this section and may also direct, in cases where such escapement or under assessment or composition is due to the dealer having concealed particulars of turnover or having without sufficient cause has furnished incorrect particulars thereof, that the dealer shall pay, by way of penalty, in addition to the tax assessed under this sub-section, a sum not exceeding one and a half times of the said tax so assessed." (emphasis Here italicised. supplied) It is clear that the period of limitation at that point of time was only 36 months, i.e., three years. The period of three years from 1978-79 has expired much ....