TMI Blog1963 (2) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal against the said order and the learned Judge (Appeals) remanded the case for fresh assessment. The assessee did not appear before the Sales Tax Officer and they were assessed again on a turnover of Rs. 3,20,000 by the Sales Tax Officer by his order dated 31st March, 1954. On appeal against this order the learned Judge (Appeals) allowed the appeal partly and having held that the forward transactions in which the delivery had been made amounted to Rs. 1,10,000 upheld the assessment in respect of that turnover. The assessee then filed a revision against the order of the learned Judge (Appeals). In the revision the finding of the learned Judge (Appeals) as to the turnover of Rs. 1,10,000 was not questioned but the assessee raised the pleas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of "escaped assessment" within the meaning of section 21 of the Act. However, the learned counsel did not seriously press this submission of his. It is obvious that the language of section 21 of the Act is wide enough to cover a case of this nature. Under section 21 of the Act, a Sales Tax Officer is empowered to make an assessment if for any reason the whole or any part of the turnover has escaped assessment. This implies that even if on account of an inadvertent mistake the assessing authority does not assess a dealer on a turnover or a part of it, it would be a case of "escaped assessment" within the meaning of that section. There is nothing in the language of section 21 of the Act which limits the power of the assessing authority t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged by the learned counsel for the assessee that there is nothing in the Amending Act of 1956 validating assessments already made under section 21 of the Act beyond the period prescribed in sub-section (2) of section 21 and inasmuch as after the substitution of section 21 by Act 19 of 1956 which came into force in May, 1956, no fresh order of assessment was passed under section 21, the order of assessment dated 31st March, 1954, continued to remain invalid. Reliance has been placed on the case of Firm Bangali Mal Satish Chandra Jain v. Sales Tax Officer, Agra[1958] 9 S.T.C. 492. We do not think that the assessee can derive any benefit from the ratio decidendi of the case cited. The decision in that case was confined to the peculiar circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars that when in appeal the decision of a lower Court is set aside and the case is remanded by the higher Court for decision in accordance with the directions given by that Court, the lower Court is restored to its original jurisdiction and it can only pass such orders as it was originally competent to pass. A remand order containing directions cannot be said to confer upon a lower Court any new jurisdiction or special jurisdiction. However, as we are deciding this case on the basis of the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 21 as substituted by the Amending Act 19 of 1956 and which is sufficient to dispose of this case, it is not necessary for us to refer this case to a larger Bench. The learned Standing Counsel also drew our atte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
