MESSRS RAMKRISHNA RAMNATH Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners Messrs Ramkrishna Ramnath, Bidi Merchants of Kamptee, carry on the business of manufacture and sale of bidis, with their head office at Kamptee and branch offices at several other places such as Tumsar, Gondia, Bhandara, Tiroda, Nagpur, Akola and other places in Vidarbha. THE petitioners are registered dealers under section 8 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (XXI of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act. As registered dealers, the petitioners were making quarterly returns under section 10 of the Act. For the period from 7th November, 1953, to 26th October, 1954, they had similarly made their returns. It is now not in dispute that these returns were not made upon the due dates under the Act but were delayed by some days. THE respective dates on which the returns were due and were actually filed are shown in a tabular statement below :- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Return for the Due date Date of actual period ending filing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-2-1954 3-4-1954 20-4-1954 2-5-1954 2-7-1954 27-3-1955 29-7-1954 29-9-1954 31-12-1954 26-10-1954 26-12-1954 27-3-1955 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

(2.) ON 11th November, 1957, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Eastern Division, Nagpur, issued a notice against the petitioners. The notice was in Form XII as prescribed by rule 32 of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Rules, 1947. By this notice, the petitioners were called upon to show cause why they should not be assessed and/or why a penalty should not be imposed upon them. The notice, it is not disputed, was issued under section 10(3) read with section 11(4)(a) of the Act though several other sections are mentioned at the top of the form.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the Full Bench held that if a case arises for the issue of a notice under section 11(2) then it is clear that that notice must be issued within three years, because if the notice is issued after three years, it would infringe the provisions of section 11-A, because the Commissioner would be doing indirectly, if not directly, what the law prohibits him from doing, namely, to bring to assessment an escaped turnover which he could not do beyond the period of three years.