PGANESH NAYAK Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions raise common questions of law. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the petitioners formulated six questions of law. They are :

(2.) The material facts found in these petitions may be briefly summarised thus: Original assessment to sales tax was made either under the Mysore Sales Tax Act 1953. Assessments made were set aside in appeal or revision with directions that re-assessment shall be made in the light of the directions given in the order. Accordingly, the petitioners were re-assessed. These reassessments in law are only assessments of escaped turnover -- See: S. Subbarayappa and Sons v. State of Mysore, 1962-40 Mys LJ 234. By the time steps were taken to re-assess the petitioners, the time for re-assessing escaped turnover had become barred either under Rule 28 of the Rules framed under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1955 or tinder Section 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. But the period of limitation for assessing the escaped turnover was extended to five years. Sections in the amendment Act (Act 26 of 1962) which are material for our purpose are Sections 4 and 6. We shall quote them in full.

(3.) After perusing the judgment of this Court in W. P. No. 287 of 1960, (Mys) Sri K. Srinivasan and Sri Katageri, the learned counsel for the petitioners did not argue the first three-points formulated by them as they were covered by that decision. Therefore, there is no need to deal with them.