TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but it is obvious that he did not initiate any action even after the receipt of the records for the reason mentioned in paragraph 3 of the departmental note. Therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the reason trotted out in the show cause notice for saving the action from being barred by limitation has no basis and cannot stand judicial scrutiny. Therefore, of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the High Court in the impugned decision in this behalf is clearly erroneous. - Civil Appeal No. 439-445 of 1986 - - - Dated:- 26-9-1996 - AHMADI A.M., AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR JJ. Tripurari Ray and Vineet Kumar, Advocates, for the appellants. M. Veerappa and R.B. Misra, Advocates, for the respondent. OR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The factual matrix may be briefly noticed with reference to one of the appellants. For the assessment year 1970-71 the purchase turnover of paddy effected by the appellant amounting to ₹ 12,69,286.25 and ₹ 29,93,521.26 was brought to tax by the Commercial Tax Officer under assessment orders dated September 29, 1973 and April 30, 1974 respectively. The appellant preferred appeals to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) contending that the paddy converted into rice could not be said to have undergone a manufacturing process and hence his turnovers were not exigible to tax under section 6 of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner following a Division Bench judgment in State v. B. Raghurama Shetty [1975] 35 STC 360 (Kar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the files were placed before the Commissioner and the Commissioner took a decision in paragraph 3 of the note extracted above, he could be said to have initiated action in exercise of the power conferred upon him by that section and, therefore, the notices were not barred by limitation. In the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner it is averred that the notice is not barred by limitation for the reason in your case the records have been received for examination in this office on March 23, 1977 which date is well within the period of limitation and, therefore, action under section 22-A in your case is not barred by limitation . The question is whether this approach of the Commissioner is correct? We think not. 5. It is clear from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation on March 23, 1977 the action under section 22-A must be taken to have been initiated on that date. It is also pertinent to note that the facts clearly show that it was the Deputy Commissioner who forwarded the records to the Commissioner on March 18, 1977 and the records were received by the Commissioner on March 23, 1977. Thereafter, the Commissioner had to make up his mind whether or not he considered it necessary to initiate action under section 22-A of the Act. In this behalf he accepted the suggestion in paragraph 3 of the departmental note extracted earlier and agreed that he could not initiate action under section 22-A since this Court s decision in B.R. Shetty s case [1981] 47 STC 369 was awaited. Whether he was right in do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
