TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Commercial Tax Officer served a notice on the assessee proposing to revise the assessment on the ground that exemption was wrongly granted in respect of a sum of Rs. 5,44,536.30 and that the same represented import purchases made by the Food Corporation of India. The assessee was given three days for submitting explanation. As the time was too short, the assessee did not furnish any explanation. On 23rd March, 1978, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, the assessing authority, revised the assessment under section 14(4)(cc) of the Act and subjected the entire disputed turnover of Rs. 5,44,536.30 to tax which was assessed at Rs. 12,252.09 holding that the turnover represented sales of maize purchased from the Food Corporation of India, Warangal, who imported it from outside the State and as the assessee is the first purchaser in the State, the goods are taxable in his hands. The assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The main contention of the assessee was that the revision of assessment under section 14(4)(cc) was barred by limitation as the assessing authority cannot reopen the assessment for the years 1972-73 beyond 31st March, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, no rights have accrued to the petitioner and the assessment had not become barred under the unamended law as the period of limitation was six years in a case where the assessing authority reopens the assessment on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish the correct particulars. Before we deal with the scope and ambit of section 14(4-A) we must first clear the ground relating to the factual aspect, namely, whether the impugned revision was made under section 14(4)(cc) on account of the dealer's failure to furnish correct particulars or due to any other cause. This is necessary because under the unamended section, the period of limitation was six years, in the case of failure to disclose the turnover or correct particulars and four years in any other case. In the present case the notice was issued under section 14(4)(cc) on the ground that the exemption was wrongly allowed. This is not a case where the action was initiated on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner. The show cause notice does not indicate that the case is one which falls under clause (a) of sub-section (4-A) of section 14 prior to its amendment. The Tribunal no doubt made a passing obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocedural its provisions operate retrospectively has been affirmed. To the same effect is the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bankey Lal v. Babu AIR 1953 All 747 (FB). In Ramprasad v. Vijaykumar AIR 1967 SC 278, it is laid down that a party has no vested right in the law of procedure. It is useful in this connection to refer to some of the decisions under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, a provision which is analogous to section 14(4-A) of the Act with which we are concerned. In S.C. Prashar v. Vasantsen [1963] 49 ITR 1 (SC); AIR 1963 SC 1356 Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was), observed: "...Now, we do not think that we can treat the different periods indicated under section 34 as periods of limitation, the expiry of which grant prescriptive title to defaulting taxpayers. It may be said that an assessment once made is final and conclusive except for the provisions of sections 34 and 35 but it is quite a different matter to say that a 'vested right' arises in the assessee. On the expiry of the period the assessments, if any, may also become final and conclusive, but only so long as the law is not altered retrospectively. Under the scheme of the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing authority to reassess is barred, it is the amended law that determines the liability of the assessee. Applying that principle it was held that since the old period of three years had not expired when section 14(4-A) came into force, the assessing authority was well within its right in making the additional assessment within the enlarged period. In Raghava Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1971] 28 STC 204 (App) (1970) 1 An WR 393, a Division Bench consisting of Gopal Rao Ekbote and Parthasarathi, JJ., held that there was a fetter on the power of jurisdiction of the assessing authority to reassess under rule 17 made under the repealed Act within 3 years and if the right of the department was barred when the repealing Act came into force, then the four or six years period provided in the new Act would not revive the last right. In Allied Exports Imports v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1971] 28 STC 175 (FB) a Full Bench of our High Court held that if the period prescribed by the unamended law had not expired and before the expiration of the period of limitation is enlarged, the new provision would apply. What emerges from these decisions is that where the right to revise w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
