SANKARAN Vs. STO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an assessee borne under the files of the respondent. For the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 he was assessed to sales tax by the respondent on 16-2-1967 and 15-2-1967 respectively. In the appeal filed by the assessee (petitioner) as per the orders passed in STA 450 and 451 dated 6-3-1968 the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Trichur set aside the assessments and remanded the matter for fresh disposal with certain directions. The petitioner was not keeping good health at that time. It is averred in the Original Petition that after a period of 13 years by notices evidenced by Exts. P1 and P2 dated 15-7-1981, the respondent directed the petitioner to file objections against the proposal made in Exts. P1 and P2, assessing the petitioner to the best judgment of the assessing authority. The petitioner filed his objections Ext. P3 dated 25-7-1981 stating that the business was abandoned long ago and that the accounts and books and other documents may not be available and that the notices Exts. P1 and P2 issued to the petitioner nearly 13 years after the order of remit by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is totally unjustified and illegal. Notwithstanding the objections, the respondent assessed the petitioner to Sales Tax for the years 1964-65 and 1965-66 by order dated 28-7-1981 evidenced by Exts. P4 and P5 in these proceedings.

(2.) The main ground on which Exts. P4 and P5 are attacked is that there is unreasonable delay in passing the revised assessment orders evidenced by Exts. P4 and P5. According to the petitioner the fresh notices of the assessing authority as also the revised assessments have been passed after an inordinate delay of 13 years and so Exts. P4 and P5 orders on the face of it are illegal and improper.

(3.) Counsel for the Revenue Mr. Hassan contended that once the order of assessment is set aside by the Appellate Authority and remitted back, the entire proceedings are pending. There is no provision in the Act which mandates the Sales Tax Officer to pass revised assessment within a particular time. In so far as there is no provision fixing a time limit within which the assessment is to be completed, it was contended, that the proceedings taken for assessing the petitioner herein in accordance with the order of remit of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is justified.