TMI Blog1961 (10) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1,500 was imposed. The petitioner before us challenges both the order of assessment and the order of imposition of penalty. So far as the order of assessment is concerned the only ground is that notices served on the petitioner before making the assessment were not in compliance with law and, therefore, the subsequent assessment is illegal and should be declared bad in law. The facts necessary for the determination of this question are not in dispute. The first notice in form XII was issued against the petitioner on 31st October, 1955. The petitioner appeared on 11th November, 1955, and later on 13th December, 1955, and requested that the case should be adjourned. The case was then fixed for 21st December, 1955, but on that date no one appeared. Thereafter a second notice was issued on 17th March, 1956, and the assessment case came up before the Sales Tax Officer on 13th April, 1956. The petitioner admittedly was not present at that hearing and so, the Sales Tax Officer passed the order dated 22nd May, 1957. The point taken in the petition is that order of assessment was made under section 11(4) which read with rule 32 of the Sales Tax Rules (sic) without the required notice. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impose a penalty is contained in section 10 of the Sales Tax Act. Sub-sections (1) and(3) of section 10 run as follows: "10. (1) Every such dealer as may be required so to do by the Commissioner by notice served in the prescribed manner and every registered dealer shall furnish such returns by such dates and to such authority as may be prescribed." "(3) If a dealer fails to comply with the requirements of a notice issued under sub-section (1) or a registered dealer fails to furnish his return for any period within the prescribed time to the prescribed authority without any sufficient cause, the Commissioner may, after giving such dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, direct him to pay, by way of penalty, a sum not exceeding one-fourth of the amount of the tax which may be assessed on him under section 11." These provisions relating to the imposition of penalty have to be read along with section 16 of the Sales Tax Act. Section 16 provides as follows: "16. Subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, the Commissioner may, by order in writing, delegate any of his powers under this Act except those under sub-section (2) of section 24 to any person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnation of Officer and Conditions of delegation (1) (2) (3) (4) 7 10 To direct a dealer who fails to furnish returns for any period within the prescribed time to the prescribed authority without any sufficient cause to pay a penalty. Deputy Commissioner (with) the previous approval ofthe Commissioner). Assistant Commissioner (with the previous approval of the Commissioner). Sales Tax Officer (with the previous approval of the Assistant Commissioner). Assistant Sales Tax Officer (with the previous approval of the Assistant Commissioner)." It will be noticed that this provision of rule 67 is relative to the power under section 10(3) to direct a dealer who fails to furnish returns for any period within the prescribed time to the prescribed authority without any sufficient cause, to pay a penalty, We have already indicated in discussing the provisions of section 10(3) that they deal with two classes of cases. It is obvious from the entry in column 3 under serial No. 7 in rule 67, that that entry deals only with the second of the two classes dealt with in section 10(3), and it is with reference to that class that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proviso to section 16 applies to both the classes of cases in sub-section (3) of section 10. Therefore, reading the provisions of section 16 together with rule 67 it is clear that rule 67 has provided for the previous approval of the Assistant Commissioner in the case only where a dealer fails to furnish returns for any period, whereas the proviso to section 16 makes provision for the previous approval of the Commissioner in both the classes of cases contemplated by section 10(3). It may be that where the second class is concerned the department may come up against an additional difficulty that it has to obtain the approval first of the Assistant Commissioner under entry No. 7 of rule 67 and also later the approval of the Commissioner under the proviso to section 16. Mr. Palshikar urged that it could not have been the intention of the draftsman of rule 67 that a dual approval should be secured before the order contemplated under section 10(3) is passed. It is not the function of the Court to inquire what was the purpose of the draftsman, and whether the object was reasonable or not, so long as we can find that the terms of a rule or of a section are clear and can be given effect t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
