TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be initiated and completed under section 14(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment of the respondent made by the Sales Tax Officer under section 14(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, for the period 1st April, 1958, to 31st December, 1959, was bad in law?" It may be clarified that in question No. (2) as set out in the paper book, the period referred to is 1st April, 1958, to 31st December, 1958, which is an obvious error as pointed out by Mr. Parkar. We have, therefore, corrected that error and set out the period as from 1st April, 1958, to 31st December, 1959, as aforesaid. 2.. The relevant facts giving rise to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Sales Tax Officer but gave a partial relief in the quantum of tax and of penalty. However, as pointed out earlier, the assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer under section 14(6) of the said Act was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner. Upon a second revision application to the Sales Tax Tribunal, the Sales Tax Tribunal held that the entire order of assessment for the said period of 1st April, 1958, to 31st December, 1959, was bad in law as it was time-barred, the notice in form XIII having been served beyond the period of five years as prescribed in section 15 of the said Act. The Tribunal held that the case fell within the scope of section 15 of the said Act, and hence the aforesaid time-limit of 5 years was applicable. It is from this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... class of tax evaders, namely, unregistered dealers, section 35 is a general provision to deal with cases of escaped assessment or under-assessment. Construed in accordance with the fundamental principle that the general provisions must always yield to the special provisions, the special class of unregistered dealers covered by section 33(6) must be taken to have been excluded from the purview of the general provisions in section 35. 4.. From the aforesaid decision it is clear that the case of the respondent, being an unregistered dealer, was covered by the provisions of section 14(6) of the said Act. It may be pointed out that unlike section 15 which provides a time-limit, which at the relevant time was 5 years, there is no such time-lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
