LAWS(KER)-1963-8-52

RAMASWAMY Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER, PONNANI

Decided On August 26, 1963
RAMASWAMY Appellant
V/S
Sales Tax Officer, Ponnani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, an assessment, to sales tax evidenced by Ext. P. 9 dated 11-2-1962 is impugned as unauthorised by the provision contained in R.17(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939. The petitioner was assessed for the year 1956-57 by Ext. P. 1 dated 27-8-1957; By Ext. P. 1 certain additions were made by the Sales Tax Officer to the turnover submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner appealed. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside the assessment order, Ext. P. 1, in so far as it related to the additions amounting to about Rs. 15,000/-. This was on 12-4-1958. In the meantime, a notice had been issued by the Sales Tax Officer on 16-12-1957 to the petitioner requiring him to show cause why on the turnover relating to sugar amounting to Rs. 49,887/- which had already been assessed at 3 naye paise per rupee an additional tax of one anna in the rupee should not be imposed. Nothing seems to have happened pursuant to this notice for a long time of four years. And in January, 1962, the petitioner was again asked why the additional tax should not be imposed. The petitioner objected to that. His case was that this additional tax should have been, if at all, imposed within three years of 31-3-1957. This contention was not accepted and Ext. P. 9 was issued. An appeal was taken before the appellate authority and the appellate authority has confirmed Ext. P. 9 in this regard. The order of the appellate authority is Ext. P. 11. R.17(3) referred to is in these terms:

(2.) It is clear from that rule that the assessment under R.17(3) must be completed within three years of the expiry of the assessment year. I therefore quash Ext. P. 9 and P. 11 in so far as they impose an additional tax of 1 anna in the rupee on the petitioner on the turnover relating to sugar which is Rs. 49,887/-. The orders, Exts. P. 9 and P. 11, will stand in other respects. There will be no order as to costs.