TMI Blog1969 (9) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utory provisions. At any rate it appears to us that the matter has to be decided under section 31(1) on the evidence and the accounts which are already on the record and no further or additional evidence can be called for and adduced. - Civil Appeal No. 520 of 1966, - - - Dated:- 15-9-1969 - SHAH J.C., RAMASWAMI V. AND GROVER A.N. JJ. D.N. Mukherjee, Advocate, for the respondent No. 1. Naunit Lal, Advocate, for the appellants. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by GROVER, J.- This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Assam and Nagaland High Court by which a petition filed by respondent No. 1 under article 226 of the Constitution was al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be revised and the price of goods purchased by him free of tax for the purpose of resale in the State by giving a declaration under rule 80 but subsequently sent outside the State should not be included in his net turnover. Thereupon respondent No. 1 filed a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court asking for the quashing of the notice and any subsequent proceedings taken pursuant thereto. The High Court allowed the petition on the ground that the provisions of section 31(1) as amended were not retrospective and the Commissioner could not exercise the powers under the said provisions so as to affect the final orders of assessment. During the pendency of the appeal before this court the Assam Legislature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder section 19A in the circumstances of the present case but the notice under it would be barred by limitation in respect of several periods for which assessment is sought to be revised. The notice has, however, been issued under section 31(1) of the Act and the judgment of the High Court proceeded on the basis that that provision could not be given retrospective operation. Owing to the change in law, as pointed out above, that situation no longer obtains and the Commissioner could issue a valid notice under section 31(1) if the matter fell within the provision of that section. In our opinion it is still open to respondent No. 1 to satisfy the authority concerned that his case does not fall within the ambit of section 31(1) and is covere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
