9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (9) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by BACHAWAT, J. HEGDE, J.-In this appeal by special leave against the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in Special Civil Application No. 5 of 1961, the only question pressed for decision at the hearing was whether the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 11A of the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (for brevity's sake to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) contravene Article 14 of the Constitution in so far as they affect proceedings under sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act. The appellant was a registered dealer under the Act during the period material for our present purpose. During the period in question it carried on the business of winning and selling manganese ore from its mines i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the relevant period for which the assessment is to be made. Evidently to overcome the effect of that decision the Bombay Legislature enacted Bombay Act 22 of 1959, which came into force on 18th April, 1959. Among other provisions that Act incorporated one more sub-section to section 11A, i.e., sub-section (3), which reads: "(a) Nothing in sub-sections (1) and (2)- (i) shall apply to any proceeding (including any notice issued) under section 11 or 22-A or 22-B and (ii) notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of a Court or Tribunal, shall be deemed ever to have been applicable to such proceeding or notice. (b) The validity of any such proceeding or notice shall not be called in question merely on the ground that such proceeding or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with some of the dealers under section 11(2) and the others under section 11A and thus deprive the former of the benefit of the limitation provided in section 11A. Attempt was made to bring the case of the appellant within the rule laid down by this Court in Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri and Another [1964] 4 S.C.R. 436; 14 S.T.C. 976. The above contentions had been unsuccessfully advanced before the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the aforementioned C.A. No. 5 of 1961. On the strength of the decision of this Court in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur [1964] 4 S.C.R. 436; 14 S.T.C. 976., the Full Bench repelled those contentions. It held that the impugned sub-section did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant to contend that sections 11(2) and 11A cover the same field to any extent nor is it open to it to contend that classification made is unreasonable having regard to the object sought to be achieved. In view of the ratio of that decision it is unnecessary for us to examine afresh the various provisions of the Act to show that the classification with which we are concerned in this case is intelligible, rational and well-conceived. The principal question that falls for decision is whether the turnovers with which we are concerned in this case can be said to have escaped assessment. It is now well-settled that an income cannot be considered as having escaped assessment if there are pending at the time proceedings for the assessment of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
