TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate for the non applicant Judgement O R D E R Per SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J 1. This is a reference under section 44(i) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short `the Act, 1958)'. The reference was admitted for hearing on 29.072011. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the applicant are that the non-applicant is a dealer of medicines and surgical equipments. For the period from 01.01.1988 to 31.12.1988, the non-applicant submitted its return and the said firm was assessed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer (for short `ASTO'), Bilaspur. In the order dated 30.04.1992, passed by the ASTO, a tax of Rs. 6610/- was assessed and after imposing penalties under various heads and after deducting the amount already paid, a demand notice to the tune of Rs. 1982/- was directed to be issued. Against the said order, the non-applicant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Sales Tax, Bilaspur. Therein, the contention of the non-applicant was that the first notice of tax assessment was issued by ASTO, Ward C, whereas the assessment has been done by the ASTO, Ward-B. There are no orders from competent authority to transfer the case fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the State/applicant submits that the assessment order was passed on 30.04.1992 which related to the period of assessment from 01.01.1988 to 31.12.1988 as per law the assessment order has to be passed within two calendar year meaning thereby the last date to pass the assessment order in normal circumstances was 31.12.1990. In this regard, it is submitted that the applicant extended the period of passing assessment order fro 31.12.1990 to 31.12.1991 vide notification dated 16.10.1990 (Annexure A/5). The time limit was further extended from 31.12.1991 to 30.061992 vide notification dated 24.10.1991 (Annexure A/6). Again, vide notification dated 30.06.1992 (Annexure A/4) the time limit was extended from 30.06.1992 to 31.07.1992. 6. On the other hand, Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant submits that the question of law, referred to this Court in the instant reference case, has already been answered by the High court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, in Auto Sales (Bombay) v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P1. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Section 31 of the Act, 1958 which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion by the Tribunal that the order dated 14.08.1992, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in Appeal Case No. 58/BPR/92(Regional) was not in accordance with law. The Deputy Commissioner, after holding that the imposition of tax was not in accordance with law and the same was improper and the assessment was accordingly quashed. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Sales Tax Officer to initiate proceedings for re-assessment under section 17(3) of the Act, 1958. 13. Section 17(3) of the Act, 1958 reads as under: "17. Returns. - (1) Every such dealer as may be required so to do by the Commissioner by notice served in the prescribed manner and every registered dealer shall furnish returns in such form in such manner for such period by such dates and to such authority as may be prescribed: xxx xxx xxx (3) If - (a) a dealer fails without sufficient cause to comply with the requirement of a notice issued under sub-section (1); or (b) a registered dealer fails without sufficient cause to pay the amount of tax in the manner prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 22 to furnish his return under sub-section (1) or revised return under sub-section (2) fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7..It is a normal rule of construction that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself.." 18. In Captain Sube Singh Others v. Lt. Governor of Delhi Others5, the Supreme Court observed as under: "29. In Anjum M.H. Ghaswala a Constitution Bench of this Court reaffirmed the general rule that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself. (See also in this connection Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka.) The statute in question requires the authority to act in accordance with the rules for variation of the conditions attached to the permit. In our view, it is not permissible to the State Government to purport to alter these conditions by issuing a notification under Section 67(1)(d) read with sub-clause (i) thereof." 19. In J K Housing Board Another v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul Others6, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled position, as aforestated and observed as under: "32. It is se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
