TMI Blog1963 (9) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by limitation, in whole or in part, under section 11(5) of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947? " 2.. The material facts are that the assessee, Messrs. L. J. Patel Co., having failed to apply for registration as a dealer under section 8 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a notice in Form XII was given to the assessee under section 11(5) of the Act in respect of the period from 19th January, 1950, to 26th October, 1953. When the assessee appeared before the Sales Tax Officer on 15th April, 1955, it was informed by an order passed by the Sales Tax Officer on that day that it would be assessed for the period from 19th January, 1950, to 26th November, 1954. The assessee was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessing officer after he made orders of assessment for the first five quarters, had directed the assessee to produce his accounts; but no accounts were produced. The Supreme Court observed: " Section 12(5) enables the assessing authority to make a best judgment assessment for ' all subsequent periods ' after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Such an opportunity was given in the present case even in respect of the last three quarters, and we are unable to hold that the assessment for the last three quarters was bad. " Section 12(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, is similar to section 11(5) of the local Act which also says that " the Commissioner shall, at any time within three calendar years from the expi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April, 1955, and directing the assessee to produce its account books on 25th April, 1955, was illegal inasmuch as it did not give thirty days' time to the assessee. The first question, therefore, must be answered by saying that the notice given to the assessee for assessment for the period from 19th January, 1950, to 26th November, 1954, was valid. 4.. The second question is answered by our decision in Battulal v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (1). In that case, it has been ruled by us that the word " period " occurring in section 11(5) of the Act covers the whole period during which a dealer being liable to pay tax had wilfully failed to apply for registration and it does not mean the quarter for which return is to be filed under rule 19. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is different and that there is no statutory obligation cast on a dealer, who does not get himself registered under the Act, to submit a return and the case of such a dealer is "really a case of evasion from his obligation to get himself registered under the Act", and that in the case of such a dealer, the assessment can be made only within three calendar years from the expiry of the period in respect whereof he is liable to pay tax. That the word "period" as used in section 11(5) cannot be construed in the same sense in which it has been used in section 11-A is obvious enough. Whereas in section 11-A the meaning of the word has to be taken with reference to the unit of assessment, that is "quarter" as held by the Supreme Court in Ghanshy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
