In the said orders the appel lant disallowed the deduction which had been allowed to the respondent in respect of the shop rent.
For the assessment year 1959 60, a sum of Rs.
He was as sessed under the Act for the assessment years 1959 60 and 1960 61 as per orders dated March 21, 1963 made by the Commercial Tax Officer Raichur.
The respondent made two applications for rectification of the orders of the appellant dated June 28, 1967.
On June 28, 1967 the appellant, i.e., the Deputy Commis sioner of Commercial Taxes, made two orders revising the orders dated June 8, 1966.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 9 12 1970 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.
For the year 1960 61 a sum of Rs.
The Commercial Tax Officer initiated proceedings under section 12A of the Act in respect of the aforesaid years because he was of the view that some items of turnover had escaped assessment.
v. Deputy Commissioner Raichur 1 and held that the amount of shop rent being number excise duty should number be deducted in companyputing the turnover of the respondent for the two years in question.
The appellant in those orders referred to the decision of this Court in Shinde Brother etc.
2,10,542 was deducted and the net taxable turnover was determined to be Rs.
145 146/ 1972.
The deduc tion in respect of shop rent and tree tax was, however, allowed to the respondent in orders dated June 8, 1966 as it had been allowed in initial orders dated March 21, 1963.
The respondent thereafter filed two petitions in the High Court under article 226 for the issuance of writs in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated June 28, 1967.
26,657.
It was urged on behalf of the respondent that the revision of assessments was barred by limitation under section 21 3 of the Act and as such there was a mistake apparent on the record.
25,989.
The Tribunal too rejected those ap peals on the ground that they were number maintainable.
Mr. Narayan Nettar, learned companynsel for the appellant has companytended in appeal before us that the period of four years mentioned in section 21 3 of the Act should be companyputed from the orders dated June 8, 1966 made under section 12A of the Act and number from the initial orders of assessment dated March 21, 1963.
The taxable turn over of the respondent for the two years in question was accordingly enhanced.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The appellant rejected those applications.
Under those orders the taxable turnover of the respondent for the two years in question was determined after deducting the shop rent and the tree tax.
Narayan Nettar, for the appellant.
3,98,350 was deducted and the net taxable turnover was determined to be Rs.
As per orders dated June 8, 1966 he made assessment by including in the turnover of the respond ent certain amounts which had escaped assessment under the original assessment orders dated March 21, 1963.
The respondent is an excise companytractor.
In the opinion of the High Court, orders dated June 28, 1967 made by the appellant were without jurisdiction since they had been made beyond the period of four years from the date of the assessment orders dated March 21, 1963.
M. Mehta, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. These two appeals by special leave are against the companymon judgment of the Mysore High Court whereby the High Court in two petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India quashed two orders made by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes appellant under section 21 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
2042 and 2065/70 .
1 1967 1 S.C.R. 548.
The respondent then preferred two appeals to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.
