9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fine by virtue of section 13(3)(b) of the State Act?" 2.. The brief facts which have given rise to the above questions are as follows: The petitioner was a partner of a firm under the name and style M/s. R. C. Hiremath (Patil). The firm was dealing in timber. It stood dissolved on 1st July, 1963. The assessing authority made an assessment order on 19th March, 1967 (exhibit 'A'). The assessment order was taken in appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority made an order on 13th January, 1970, setting aside the assessment order on the ground that before the dissolution of the firm on 1st July, 1963, there was no provision which empowered the authorities to make an assessment against the dissolved firm. Thereafter the legislature amended the provisions of the State Act by Act No. 9 of 1964. Sub-section (2) was introduced to section 15 specifically providing for making an assessment against a dissolved firm. Section 34 of the said Act validated all the proceedings including assessments made against the dissolved firms. In the case of S.S. Navalgi v. Commercial Tax Officer, Jamkhandi [1971] 28 S.T.C. 580., the question of validation of assessments made against the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing for making an assessment against a dissolved firm by Act 9 of 1964 and the said section was given retrospective effect by virtue of section 24 of Act No. 9 of 1970 and further, all the orders of assessment made earlier were validated. Section 9 of the Central Act which originally stood had adopted all the provisions of the State law. The question whether subsequent amendments made to the State Act were also applicable in respect of assessments to be made under the Central Act, specifically came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Mysore Electrical Industries Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer, V Circle, Bangalore[1971] 27 S.T.C. 559. This Court held that in view of the definition of the words "sales tax law" and "general sales tax law" in the Central Act, read with section 9 of the State Act (sic) not only the State Act as it stood on the date when section 9 was introduced but future amendments made to the State Act also stand automatically adopted with effect from the date when the amendments are enacted. The same view was followed in A.V. Rajshekarappa v. Commercial Tax Officer, II Circle, Hubli[1975] 35 S.T.C. 379. In view of this decision it is clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequent amendment made with retrospective effect, section 15(2) was introduced and the assessment orders made against a dissolved firm at a point of time when section 15(2) was not in existence were validated as if they had been made after the introduction of sub-section (2) of section 15 with retrospective effect by virtue of section 24 of Act No. 9 of 1970 amending the State Act and section 9 of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act of 1969. In order to substantiate that the procedure for making assessment against a dissolved firm was substantive provision, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in S.S. Navalgi v. Commercial Tax Officer, Jamkhandi[1971] 28 S.T.C. 580. in which section 34 of Act No. 9 of 1964 was held to be invalid on the ground that sub-section (2) of section 15 had not been given retrospective effect and consequently the validation clause was also invalid. He argued that if section 15(2) of the State Act was considered as a procedural provision, there would have been no necessity to give retrospective effect or to introduce a validating provision and this Court struck down the validating section only on the basis that section 15(2) was a substantive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntroduction of section 15(2) to the State Act with retrospective effect and validation made by section 24 of the amending Act of 1970 made to the State Act read with section 9 of the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1969. 7.. The next question for consideration is whether the limitation prescribed under section 70, Indian Penal Code, for the recovery of fine is attracted to the proceedings for recovery under section 13(3)(b) of the State Act. Section 13(3)(b) of the State Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (now the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), on application to any Magistrate for the recovery of tax due under the Act, he could proceed to recover the said amount as if it were a fine imposed by him. Section 70, I.P.C., prescribes the period of limitation of six years for the recovery of fine imposed under the Penal Code. The argument advanced for the petitioner was that as section 13(3)(b) of the State Act provides that the amount of sales tax recoverable under the State Act could be recovered by a Magistrate as if it were a fine, the period of limitation prescribed under section 70 of the Penal Code was also applicab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
