TMI Blog1967 (9) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fferential treatment of the notices under sections 11(2) and 11A(1) for the purposes of limitation. - Civil Appeal No. 534 of 1966 - - - Dated:- 28-9-1967 - WANCHOO K.N., BACHAWAT R.S., RAMASWAMI V. AND MITTER G.K. AND HEGDE K.S. N.S. Bindra, Senior Advocate (R.N. Sachthey for R.H. Dhebar with him), for the respondents. A.S. Bobde and G.L. Sanghi and Rameshwar Nath of Rajinder Narain Co., for the appellant. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of WANCHOO, C.J., MITTER and HEGDE, JJ., was delivered by HEGDE, J. The judgment of BACHAWAT and RAMASWAMI, JJ., was delivered by BACHAWAT, J. HEGDE, J. -In this appeal by special leave against the decision of the High Court of Judicature a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0(3) in respect of the second and third quarters of that year. The appellant objected to the validity of those notices. It contended that those notices were barred by time. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax kept the proceedings pending. This he did possibly because of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Bisesar House v. State of Bombay', which lent support to the contention of the appellant. That decision laid down that the period of limitation prescribed under section 11A is to be imported in section 11(2) and therefore a notice under section 11(2) cannot be issued after the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant period for which the assessment is to be made. Evidently to overcome the effect of that decision the Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he two classes of dealers is invidious and irrational; in fact, the persons who have wilfully committed a breach of the law are treated more favourably than those who are more law-abiding. Taking support from the reasoning adopted by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Bisesar House case' and ignoring the fact that the said decision had been overruled by this Court in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur [1964] 4 S.C.R. 436; 14 S.T.C. 976., it was vehemently urged that as the field covered by section 11(2) is also covered by section 11A, it was open to the assessing authorities to deal with some of the dealers under section 11(2) and the others under section 11A and thus deprive the former of the bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bom. 620. Therein this Court held that while section 11(2) deals with pending proceedings, section 11A concerns itself with matters which are not pending. This Court further ruled that in the case of pending proceedings the Act has not prescribed any period of limitation. That decision proceeds on the basis that section 11(2) and section 11A cover different fields and that they do not overlap. In our judgment, the decision of this Court in Ghanshyamdas's case either directly or by implication answers every one of the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant. In view of that decision it is no more open to the appellant to contend that sections 11(2) and 11A cover the same field to any extent nor is it open to it to contend that classi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween those whose cases come within section 11(2) and those whose cases are governed by section 11A. In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs. BACHAWAT, J.- We agree that the appeal should be dismissed with costs. There is no limitation for the issue of a notice under section 11(2). This follows from a plain reading of section 11(2) independently of section 11A(3). Neither section 11(2) nor section 11A(3) is violative of Article 14. A notice under section 11(2) is issued in a pending proceeding, whereas a notice under section 11A(1) initiates a new proceeding. There is a reasonable basis for classification and differential treatment of the notices under sections 11(2) and 11A(1) for the purposes of limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
