TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les Tax Officer, Ahmednagar, served a notice upon the respondents on 8th April, 1964, to show cause why they should not be assessed under section 14(6) of the said Act. Though the respondents appeared pursuant to the said notice, they did not produce any books of account on the ground that they did not keep any books. The Sales Tax Officer, after hearing them, assessed the respondents as processors and fixed their liability to pay tax under the said Act from 1st April, 1957, under section 5(1)(b)(iii) of the said Act and levied a penalty of Rs. 1,500 under section 14(7) of the said Act. The respondents thereupon preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax which appeal was partly allowed. The respondents then filed a rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents?" It is obvious that the third question is really a rolled up question and consists of two entirely separate questions. We accordingly split up question No. (3) into the following two questions: "(3) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in fixing the liability of the respondents from 1st April, 1958, instead of 1st April, 1957? (4) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in reducing the penalty to 20 per cent of the amount of tax assessed and payable by the respondents?" At the hearing of this reference, Mr. Phadkar, the learned counsel for the applicant, stated that the applicant does not press questions Nos. (1), (2) and (4), but only desires this Court to determine question No. (3). We will, therefore, confine ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the end of the year in respect of which the assessment is to be made, that is, a notice to show cause why such a reassessment should not be made should be served upon the dealer within five years of the end of that particular year in respect of which the reassessment is proposed to be made. There was a similar section providing for reassessment in the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, viz., section 11A, with this difference that the period of limitation therein was three years instead of five years as in the Bombay Act. Section 11(4) of the C.P. and Berar Act, inter alia, provided that if a registered dealer did not furnish returns in respect of any period by the prescribed date, the Commissioner of Sales Tax should in the prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atio of the decision in Anandji Haridas and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. S.P. Kushare[1968] 21 S.T.C. 326 (S.C.). to the present case, the Tribunal overlooked a crucial fact, viz., that both section 11(4) and section 11A(1) of the C.P. and Berar Act applied to registered dealers, while section 14(6) the Bombay Sales Tax Act applies only to unregistered dealers. The constitutionality of section 14(6) of the Bombay Act came to be considered by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramjibhai Danabhai[1979] 44 S.T.C. 137 (S.C.). It was contended before the Supreme Court in that case that section 14(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, and the corresponding section, viz., section 33(6) of the present Sales Tax Act, viz., the Bombay Sales Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
