TMI Blog1956 (3) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued to the assessee to show cause why he should not be assessed on his turnover for the assessment year 1951-52. The assessee did not submit any return even after the receipt of the notice. On 16th January, 1954, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer estimated the turnover of the assessee for 1951-52 at Rs. 33,016-1-5, on the basis of the entries in the assessee's books themselves, and assessed him to pay a tax of Rs. 515-14-0. On appeal the Commercial Tax Officer confirmed the assessment. On further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal, the assessment was set aside. The Tribunal was of the view that the case of the assessee had to be dealt with under rule 17(1) of the General Sales Tax Rules, and it pointed out that the period of limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouis Dreyfus and Co., Ltd.(1), a Full Bench of this Court pointed out: "The language employed in section 34 of the Income-tax Act, which has undergone serious changes from time to time is not identical with that in rule 17 of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules and the mere fact that both these provisions are designed to achieve a somewhat similar purpose is too slender a foundation for the application of the cases construing one provision for determining the scope of the other. We, therefore, pro- pose to confine our attention to the language used in 17(1) and gather the intention of the rule-making authority as expressed by the words employed." We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to consider over again the cases cited by the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment made on 16th January, 1954, was barred by the rule of limitation as it stood in the relevant period. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 100. T.R.C. No. 88 of 1955. The chequered history of the case upto the stage at which the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed the respondent-assessee on 20th March, 1954, on a turnover of Rs. 44,617-15-0, which according to the departmental authority has escaped assessment in 1950-51, has been set out in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that that assessment was beyond the period of limitation prescribed by rule 17(1) as it stood during the relevant period, and set aside the assess- ment. The Government seeks to have that order revised under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
