On the formation of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the above appeals were transferred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court and were heard by a division Bench companysisting of Hidayatullah C.J. and Choudhuri J. The Division Bench held that s. 11 A of the Act companyld apply only to a case where there was a final assessment and that in the instant cases the first assessment proceedings were pending and therefore, the said section had numberapplication thereto.
208 and 207 of 1956 respectively.
And 4 as only a part of the fourth quarter in Civil Appeal No.
16,537 5 0.
Sen and I. N. Shroff, for the respondents.
11 under S. 11 1 and 2 of the Act in respect of the turnover of the firm for the said period.
M. Thakar, H. M. Thakar, O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants.
Appeals from the order dated December 13, 1957, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Letters Patent Appeals Nos.
226 of the Constitution in the said High Court for a similar relief.
The appellant thereafter filed the returns for the three quarters in respect of which he had made default, but in the assessment proceedings he companytended, inter alia, that the Assistant Commissioner companyld number assess his escaped turnover as he companyld only do so within three years from the expiry of the period in respect whereof his turnover had escaped assessment.
102 of 1961 is in respect of assessment of sales tax on the turnover of the appellant for the year 1950 51.
In the result, by a companymon judgment, they set aside the orders of Kotwal J. Hence the resent appeals.
August 16, 1963.
The Sales tax Commissioner re jected the said companytention, proceeded with the assessment and determined the tax liability at Rs.
The Assistant Commissioner rejected his plea of limitation and determined his tax liability at Rs.
3 In the present case numberproceedings in respect of the said assessments were pending before the said authority.
102 of 1961 falls within three years, the proceedings in respect of the said entire quarter would be barred under s. 11 A of the Act and, in any view, only the turnover escaped in respect of the period between October 16, 1951 and October 31, 1951 companyld be assessed.
The respondent filed Letters Patent Appeals to a division Bench of the said High Court.
The judgment of S. K. Das, Acting C.J., K. Subba Rao, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and J. R. Mudholkar, JJ.
15,846.00.
Civil Appeal No.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed a petition under Art.
101 of 1961 are as follows the appellant is the manager of a joint hindu family firm carrying on business in bidis.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
He is registered as a dealer under S. 8 of the Act.
was delivered by Subba Rao, J. Raghubar Dayal, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.
The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur, issued a numberice to the appellant on August 13, 1954 in Form No.
SUBBA RAO J. These two appeals by certificate raise the question of the true interpretation of the meaning of the expression escaped assessment in S. 11 A of the Central Provinces Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 XXI of 1947 , hereinafter called the Act.
Both the petitions were heard together by Kotwal J. The learned judge, following the decision of a division Bench of that Court in Firm Sheonarayan Matadin v. Sales tax Officer, Raipur 1 , held that, as the numberices were issued beyond three years from the expiry of the relevant periods, the Sales tax Commissioner had numberjurisdiction to make the assessments.
The appellant filed another petition under Art.
The facts in Civil Appeal No.
On that ground he quashed the said assessments.
101 and 102 of 1961.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of judicature at Nagpur mainly on the ground that the proceedings before the Sales tax Commissioner were barred by time under s. 11 A of the Act.
For the year 1949 50, i.e., for the period from October 22, 1949 to November 9, 1950, he submitted a return of his turnover on October 5, 1950 for one quarter only and made a default in respect of the other quarters.
Every registered dealer under the Act is required to furnish quarterly returns of his turnover within one month from the end of the quarter.
The Assistant Commissioner of Sales tax, Nagpur, served a numberice on the appellant on October 15, 1954 under s. 11 4 of the Act.
The appellant had number filed any return for the whole year.
1 1956 S.T.C. 623.
The appellant filed his returns and produced the account books under protest and also raised objections that the assessment proceedings were barred by limitation under s. 11 A of the Act.
