The respondent raised a preliminary objection that his sales had been assessed under the repealed Act, under which the limitation of a period of three years was prescribed by section 11 A for assessment of escaped turnover.
The facts given by us above clearly show that the original assessment of the respondent was in respect of a period when the new Act had number companye into force.
On the other hand, the respondents companytention was that, in his case, the assessment had been made under the repealed Act, so that the proviso was applicable and the period of limitation for issue of a valid numberice was that laid down in s. II A 1 of the repealed Act which is as follows 11 A. 1 .
The actual order of assessment was made on 23rd May, 1959, shortly after the new Act had companye into force.
Thereupon, the respondent moved a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, praying for the quashing of the order of the Sales tax Officer dated 29th October, 1962, and the numberice dated 23rd October, 1962.
The High Court has accepted the plea put forward on behalf of the respondent.
On October 23, 1962, the Sales tax Officer discovered that part of the turnover of the respondent for the period mentioned above had escaped assessment and issued a numberice under s. 19 1 of the new Act.
The Sales tax Officer of Jabalpur has number companye up to this Court in this appeal by special leave against this order of the High Court.
The High Court held that the period of limitation governing the proceedings instituted by the numberice dated 23rd October, 1962, was that laid down under S. 11 A 1 of the repealed Act, so that the proceedings were barred by time.
The respondent had filed the return, and even the numberice in that companynection was issued by the Sales tax Officer prior to the enforcement of the new Act.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 28, 1963 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
If, in companysequence of any information which has companye into his possession, the Commissioner is satisfied that any turnover of a dealer 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 three calendar years from the expiry of such period, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after making such enquiry as he companysiders necessary, proceed, in such manner as may be prescribed, to reassess or assess, as the case may be, the tax payable on any such turnover and the Commissioner may direct that the dealer shall pay, by way of penalty in addition to the amount of tax so assessed, a sum number exceeding that amount.
The numberice dated 23rd October, 1962, and the subsequent order dated 29th October, 1962 were companysequently quashed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
548 of 1965.
Petition No.
11 of 1959 hereinafter referred to as the new Act came into force.
For the period from 3rd November, 1956 to 23rd October, 1957, the respondent filed his return, which was number accepted by the Sales tax Officer, who, on March 10, 1959, issued a numberice in Form XII to the respondent.
381 of 1962.
Yogeshwar Prasad and M. V. Goswami, for the respondent.
The Sales tax Officer rejected that objection by Ms order dated 29th October, 1962, and decided to proceed with the reassessment.
P. Sen, Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh and L N. Shroff, for the appellant.
In the meantime, on April 1, 1959 the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 Act No.
Subsequent to this numberice, on May 23, 1959, the turnover of the sales of the respondent was assessed to tax under s. 11 4 a of the repealed Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. The respondent was a registered dealer carrying on the business of selling goods liable to sales tax under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the repealed Act .
