1969 (8) TMI 87

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is turnover for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59. The third respondent herein issued a preliminary notice on 29th February, 1964, to appear on 2nd March, 1964, and file a detailed statement of accounts. The final notice issued on 6th March, 1964, directed the petitioner to produce his accounts before 13th March, 1964. A provisional assessment was made on 17th March, 1964, and the petitioner was assessed on a turnover of ₹ 50,000 for the year 1957-58 and on ₹ 30,000 for the year 1958-59 and a tax at the rate of 3 per cent thereon was levied. After hearing the objections filed regarding the provisional assessment, the final assessment order was made on 24th March, 1964. Thereafter, on 12th June, 1964, proceedings for the l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n a period of six years from the expiry of the year to which the tax, licence fee or registration fee relates, if any such event has occurred on account of the failure of the dealer to disclose the turnover or any other particulars correctly; (b) within a period of four years from the expiry of the year aforesaid, if any such event has occurred due to any other causes. In a case falling under clause (a), the assessing authority may also direct the dealer to pay, in addition to the tax assessed as aforesaid, a penalty not exceeding one and a half times the amount of that tax. Explanation.- The expression 'assessing authority' occurring in this sub-section shall, in relation to licence fee or registration fee, be construed as referrin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te concealment on the part of the assessee, he did not submit any return. It was his default that led to the escape of the turnover for 1951-52 from assessment to the tax lawfully due. It was the whole of the turnover for that year that escaped assessment. " 4. THIS view was approved by the Supreme Court in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur ([1963] 14 S. T. C. 976 at 981 (S. C.) ). The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a case in which a dealer failed to file a return falls exclusively under sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Act, and the assessing authority cannot act under sub-section (4) of section 14 cannot, therefore, be accepted. Coming to the other contention as regards....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....quot;in addition to tax" occurring in that sub-section give an indication that this power is ancillary to the power to levy the tax, and not an independent one. That being so, when the power of levy the tax itself can be exercised within a period of six years from the assessment year, it could not have been the intention of the Legislature to vest this ancillary power in the assessing authority to be exercised at some indefinite distant future. If such a power were to be given, a dealer who has been validly assessed to tax within a period of six years under sub-section (4) of section 14 would still be exposed to the levy of penalty at some distant future. It could not have been the intention of the Legislature to expose the assessee to....