9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (10) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtotalling the purchases and sales in the ledger. On 17th March, 1972, the assessing authority issued a notice to the dealers in form XII to produce their accounts for 1966-67 on 21st March, 1972. The assessee did not produce the accounts. The assessing authority again issued a notice on 25th March, 1972, to produce the accounts. Again the assessee did not comply. In a further notice on 25th March, 1972, the assessing authority wrote again saying that there was every reason to suspect that the turnover reported in form A-2 for 1966-67 did not represent the correct turnover and that from the records of the subsequent assessment years, it was seen that the assessee had suppressed monthly Rs. 10,000 under taxable and Rs. 5,000 under exempted g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the period of limitation, it was enough if the proceedings were initiated and that such proceedings need not have been completed before the expiry of the period prescribed under section 16. The result was that the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was set aside and the order of the assessing authority restored. There is no discussion on the correctness of the addition or on the quantum of the penalty levied. The only point that arises in the present appeal is whether the assessing authority had power to pass his order dated 7th June, 1972, which is beyond the period of 5 years. Section 16(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, provides: "Where, for any reason, the whole or any part of the turnover of business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time-barred. For the assessment year 1962-63, the question had to be considered in the light of rule 33 of the Rules framed under the Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act. Rule 33, which is substantially similar to section 16, runs as follows: "Rule 33. (1) If for any reason the whole or any part of the turnover of business of a dealer or licensee has escaped assessment to tax in any year or if the licence fee has escaped levy in any year, the assessing authority or licensing authority, as the case may be, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) may at any time within three years next succeeding that to which the tax or licence fee relates determine to the best of his judgment the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een laid in other cases relating to analogous provisions in sales tax statute must be followed as otherwise the purpose of a provision like rule 33 can be completely defeated by taking certain collateral proceedings and obtaining a stay order as was done in the present case or by unduly delaying assessment proceedings beyond a period of three years." The result was that the Supreme Court confirmed the validity of the assessment even though the assessment was actually completed beyond the period of three years mentioned in rule 33. This judgment of the Supreme Court was considered and applied in Anglo French Textiles Limited, Pondicherry v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, MaduraiW.P. Nos. 3939 to 3941 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he tax related. In the counter-affidavit, it was contended that the pre-assessment notice was already issued prior to the period of five years and that, therefore. the assessment could he completed at any time. These contentions were examined by this Court in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, Ernakulam v. Sudarsanam lyengar & Sons[1970] 25 S.T.C. 252 (S.C.). In the course of the arguments, reference was made to section 16(4) of the Act under which in computing the period of limitation, the time during which the proceedings for assessment or reassessment remained stayed under the orders of a civil court or other competent authority is to be excluded. This Court pointed out as follows: "We a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad in law, as the relevant notice was issued prior to the expiry of the time-limit. The Commissioner was thus justified in accepting in principle the validity of the order of the assessing authority. In the present case, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in dealing with the appeal by the assessee against the reassessment proceedings observed as follows: "Even on merits, the assessing authority has not checked the books of account and established a case of escapement of turnover. Without perusing and verifying the books of account presumption of escapement of turnover is not sustainable. In view of the above discussions, the appellants are entitled to succeed both on grounds of limitation and also on merits." This order of the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
