TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1961 (7) TMI 82
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aler in paddy and rice. He was assessed on a turnover of Rs. 2,06,930-9-3 on 1st December, 1955. A notice was issued to him on 31st October, 1958, to show cause why assessment should not be made on the additional turnover on the ground of its having been suppressed and it having escaped assessment in the previous assessment. The explanation submitted by the assessee was rejected and the assessing authority determined the suppressed turnover at Rs. 8,55,506-11-6 and levied a tax of Rs. 13,367-30 nP. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes against the additional assessment but it was dismissed and the dismissal was confirmed on further appeal by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. In this revi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority or licensing authority, as the case may be, subject to the provisions in Sub-rule (i-A), may, at any time within three years next succeeding that to which the tax or licence fee relates, determine to the best, of his judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the tax payable in such turnover or levy the licence fee, after issuing a notice to the dealer or licensee and after making such enquiry as he considers necessary. * * * 7. It is plain that this rule fixes a period of three years from the end of the year to which the tax relates, i.e., from the end of the assessment year. If the instant case is governed by this rule, the period of limitation would have expired on 31st March, 1958. But before the expiry o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment in question would come within the scope of Rule 17(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939, as Section 14(4) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, is prospective and not retrospective in operation. 9. In support of this theory, the learned counsel relies upon the decisions of this Court in Government of Andhra v. K. Rajaiah & Co. [1957] 8 S.T.C. 164 and Lakshminarayana Chetty v. Additional Income Tax Officer. We are not convinced that this argument is substantial or that the two rulings cited above lend any countenance to his proposition. In order to extend the provisions of Section 14(4), it is not essential that it should be retroactive. What is material is whether the period prescribed under Rule 17(1) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be made only on or before 31st March, 1953. Under Rule 17(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939, as amended by G.O. 1635, Revenue, dated nth June, 1953, the assessment could be revised within three years from the date of the original assessment. It is seen that this rule was amended after the expiry of the limitation prescribed under the old rule. The question for consideration was whether the amended rule could save the re-assessment made after two years next succeeding the assessment year. The learned Judges ruled that it could not, because the assessment had become final before the amendment and the amended rule was not retrospective. It was not laid down that the assessment had become final when it was made. It is clear from a ....