In the view of the Judge Revisions Sales Tax, it was necessary to determine the ownership of the goods at the time of their sale.
The Sales Tax Officer rejected the companytention of the appellant Company and insisted that the books of account and other documents be produced as directed earlier.
On January 9, 1928 the Commissioner of Income tax In exercise of powers of revision under s. 33 of the Act issued a numberice to the assessee requiring him to show cause why the order of the Income tax Officer granting registration of the firm and assessing it on that footing should number be set aside, and by order dated February 13, 1928 ordered cancellation of registration and 1 1938 L.R. 65 T.A. 236.
The order passed by Chaturvedi J., was reversed in appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court.
Against the order passed by the High Court reversing the order passed by Chaturvedi J., this appeal has been preferred with special leave.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 3, 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
It was in the view of the learned Judge immaterial whether assessment was being made by the Sales Tax Officer suo motu or under the direction of a superior authority if at the time of making the re assessment the period prescribed by S. 21 had expired.
But the order of the appellate authority was set aside by the Judge Revisions Sales Tax, by order dated March 28, 1955 and the case was remanded to the Sales Tax Officer for fresh assessment.
3 of 1956.
Under the Act as it then stood, a registered firm was number liable to pay super tax and was liable to income tax at the maximum rate.
The appellant Company then petitioned on September 2, 1955 to the High Court of Allahabad under Art.
226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur, from proceeding with the assessment of the appellant Company for the assessment year 1948 49 and for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated September 2, 1955 of the Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur and the proceeding taken for re assess ment in pursuance thereof.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
830 of 1963.
P. Rana, for the respondents.
S. Pathak and S. P. Varma, for the appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah J. The appellants public limited Company having its registered office at Calcutta, was, with effect from October 5, 1946, appointed sole agent for sale of goods manufactured by the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Ltd. On March 20, 1952, the Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur issued a numberice under s. 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 calling upon the appellant Company to file a return of its turnover for the assessment year 1948 49 on the ground that the turnover had escaped assessment.
made a best judgment assessment and determined the taxable turnover of the appellant Company, at Rs.
9 and 10 of the Act which he was bound to carry out and to such assessment proceedings the period of limitation prescribed by S. 21 of the Act did number apply.
50 lakhs for the year 1948 49 and determined the appropriate tax liability.
In the appeal to the Judge Appeals Sales Tax, the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer, was set aside, that authority holding that the appellant Company was number a dealer within the meaning of s. 2 c of the Act.
On March 31, 1952, the Sales Tax Office.
Srinivasan and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the intervener.
The appellant Company companytended that as the original assessment under s. 21 had been set aside by the Judge Revisions Sales Tax, numberproceeding in companynection with that assessment was pending and re assessment was barred because more than three year had elapsed since the end of the year of assessment.
The Sales Tax Officer then issued a numberice calling, upon the appellant Company to produce its books of account and other relevant documents on July 23, 1955 for the purpose of assessment for the year 1948 49.
directed the Income tax Officer to take necessary action thereupon.
