TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt order dated December 19, 1990 passed under section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 holding that the order of reassessment was in fact review and revision of original orders as no sales tax had been imposed on iron hoops in the first assessment orders?" 2.. The facts in so far as they are relevant for answering the question need to be taken note of from the statement of case drawn by the Tribunal infra. 3.. The assessee is engaged in the business of ginning and pressing of cotton bales. They are also engaged in sale and purchase of cotton bales. 4.. By order dated October 31, 1988 (annexure B), the assessee was assessed by the assessing authority. One of the items of assessment amongst other was purchase tax on local p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act which alone is relevant for the purpose of answering the question reads as under: "Section 19(1). Assessment of turnover escaping assessment. Where an assessment has been made under the Act or any Act repealed by section 52 and if for any reason any sale or purchase of goods chargeable to tax under this Act or any Act repealed by section 52 during any period has been under-assessed or has escaped assessment or assessed at a lower rate or any deduction has been wrongly made therefrom, the Commissioner may, at any time within five calendar years from the date of order of assessment, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after making such enquiry as he considers necessary, proceed in such manner as ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd not section 19 ibid. It is for the reason that such is not a case of under-assessment/escape assessment falling within the mischief of section 19(1) ibid. If the assessing officer felt that in place of purchase tax, a levy of sales tax is to be imposed on the goods in question then he wished to change the very basis of assessment order. In such case, proper action to be taken to remedy the wrong is not by taking recourse to section 19 but section 39. We, thus, concur with the view expressed by the Board and hold that notice issued under section 19(1) of the Act is without jurisdiction and is not thus, legally sustainable in law. We are supported by the authority reported in Laduram Ramniwas v. State of M.P. [1996] 102 STC 240 (MP); (1994 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
