Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1998 (11) TMI 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner is a partnership-firm and is carrying on the business of collection of royalty under an agreement with the State of M.P. The Sales Tax Officer, Circle I, Neemach/respondent No. 3 determined the liability of the petitioner to pay sales tax with effect from December 11, 1981, by order dated November 5, 1988. This was passed in the order sheet. A copy of the order passed in order sheet has been placed on record as annexure K and after completion of the proceedings, order was passed on November 5, 1988 (annexure L). Both these orders are under challenge in this petition. Along with the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has also challenged the validity of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itution of India. 6.. Section 4-A of the Act, which is relevant for our purpose, reads as under: Section 4-A: Determination of liability to pay tax under this Act.-(1) The Commissioner shall, in the prescribed manner, institute proceedings for the purpose of determining the liability of a dealer to pay tax under this Act. Such liability shall be determined by an order and such determination shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date of institution of such proceedings. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 4, liability of dealer to pay tax under this Act shall not be determined from a date earlier than five years prior to,- (i) the date of institution of proceedings under sub-section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of institution, and if the period of limitation prescribed under section 4-A, i.e., the period of 12 months has already expired, then the whole exercise will come to an end. Section 18(6)(a), which is relevant for our purpose, reads as under: Section 18: Assessment of tax.-(1) ............... (6)(a). If upon any information which has come into his possession, the Commissioner is satisfied that any dealer, who has been liable to pay tax in respect of any period, has failed to apply for registration, the Commissioner shall, within twelve months from the date of completion of the proceedings under sub-section (1) of section 4-A, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, proceed in such manner as may be prescribe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... relevant for our purpose, reads as under: Rule 52-A: Initiation of proceeding for determination of liability.-(1) The proceeding for determination of liability of a dealer under sub-section (1) of section 4-A shall be initiated by issue, of a notice in form XXIV. (2) The order determining the liability of a dealer under sub-section (1) of section 4-A shall be in form XXIV-A. A copy of such order shall be served on the dealer within seven days from the date of passing that order. According to rule 52-A, the proceedings for determination of liability of a dealer under sub-section (1) of section 4-A shall be initiated by issue, of a notice in form XXIV. Thereafter, sub-rule (2) says that the order determining the liability of a dealer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ; therefore, it has to be quashed, as the petitioner has no other remedy because a remedy of revision under the proviso to section 39(1) is barred. We need not to go into the question of validity of the second proviso to section 39(1) of the Act as we are satisfied in the present case that the order in question is beyond jurisdiction as being barred by time. Therefore, the action of the respondents are without jurisdiction and consequently, the order dated November 5, 1988 (annexure L) is quashed. We have not expressed any opinion with regard to the validity of the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 39 of the Act, as it is not necessary in the present case to examine the validity of that provision. The petition is allowed. No orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates