TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 994
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imitation as provided under section 37 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present writ appeal are that the appellant-writ petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Assam General Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 1993-94 (the assessment order was made on June 20, 1996) the appellant-writ petitioner was charged in addition to his legal liability an amount of Rs. 45,870 with a clear understanding that the amount is adjustable. For the assessment year 1994-95 under the assessment order dated June 10, 1996 the appellant-writ petitioner was again additionally charged a sum of Rs. 24,499 and an observation was made that the excess amount was refundable. Out of the said two amounts which were charged extra, in the assessment year 1995-96 a sum of Rs. 8,613 was adjusted while other amount remained either for adjustment or awaiting in application for refund. For the assessment year 1996-97 the appellant-writ petitioner made an application and also claimed adjustment of the balance amount. The total tax payable for the assessment year 1996-97 was Rs. 1,11,437 out of which the balance was claimed to be adjustable. The as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as provided under section 37 of the Act. The Board of Revenue, however, did not agree with the contention raised by the appellant-writ petitioner and dismissed the appeal. The appellant-writ petitioner still assertive of his right and being dissatisfied by the orders passed by the revisional authority and the appellate authority preferred W.P. (C) No. 6111 of 2002. However, the said petition, as observed above, came to be dismissed on May 17, 2007 See page 66 supra. (Jyoti Forge Fabrication v. State of Assam), therefore, the appellant-writ petitioner has come up before us in this appeal. The sole question for consideration before us is whether the revisional court could remand the matter for passing a fresh order of rectification/ assessment and as a corollary to the same whether the order of assessment amounts to extension of limitation for passing order of rectification. For proper appreciation of the dispute it would be necessary to refer to section 37 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. Section 37 reads as under: "37. (1) The authority which made an assessment or order or passed an order in appeal or revision in respect thereof may, at any time within three years f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....writ petitioner was required to appear on September 21, 2000 while the notice was received by him on October 16, 2000 and the order of assessment was made on September 26, 2000. The appellant-writ petitioner is not aggrieved by that part of the order. The grievance sought to be ventilated before us is could the revisional authority remand the matter for passing/making a fresh order of assessment if the order of assessment now passed would be passed after the period of three years. The learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner placing reliance upon the judgments of the honourable Supreme Court in S. Govindaraju v. Karnataka S.R.T.C. reported in [1986] 3 SCC 273 and Krishan Lal v. State of J & K [1994] 4 SCC 422 has submitted that if the orders are passed against the principles of natural justice and against the statutory command then such orders would be absolutely null and void. Insofar as the principle laid down in the said judgments are concerned we cannot doubt the same because it would be trite to say that whenever an order is passed violating the statutory command or offending the principles of natural justice such orders would be no orders in the eyes of law. The q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioner, in reply, has submitted that if the learned single judge was of the opinion that the two Division Bench judgments of this court were per incuriam then maintaining judicial discipline the learned single judge should have referred the matter to a larger Bench. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the orders passed by the learned single judge and the subordinate Tribunals. In the matter of Bhauram Jodhraj & Co. [1989] 75 STC 23 (Gauhati); [1988] 2 GLR 285 the question of interpretation of section 12(1) of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 was under consideration. Undisputedly the provisions of section 12(1) of 1956 Act are pari materia with the provisions of 1993 Act. In the said matter of Bhauram Jodhraj & Co. [1989] 75 STC 23 (Gauhati); [1988] 2 GLR 285 the Division Bench has observed that when the requirement of section 12 of the Act was not followed the demand notice to the affected dealers was liable to be quashed. The High Court left the authority free with the direction that it may take up rectification proceedings in case of those affected dealers if those were not otherwise barred and if there was no other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the appellate/revisional authority or the court would cause no harm to anybody. In the present matter undisputedly the first order was made by the authority within the period of limitation. True it is that the learned single judge while distinguishing the case of Bengal Tea & Fabrics Ltd. [1997] (II) GLT 30 did not refer the matter to larger Bench but the fact still remains that the learned single judge had two Supreme Court judgments with him which were clearly providing that no further period could be prescribed if an appeal against the impugned order was to be filed. In the matters of Pooran Mall & Sons reported in [1974] 96 ITR 390 (SC) and National Taj Traders [1980] 121 ITR 535 (SC); [1980] 1 SCC 370 their Lordships of the Supreme Court were taking into consideration the provisions of the Income-tax Act which though are not pari materia in language but on principles are the same. They also provide for rectification orders and orders of reassessment. The Supreme Court in the said matters had gone to the extent of saying that if the period of time fixed under a particular provision is held to be mandatory it would be satisfied when the first order was made. According t....