BATTULAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE questions of law formulated for our opinion in this reference at the instance of the dealer under Section 44 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, are:

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner, who is a dealer, did not get himself registered under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act), though he was liable to pay tax thereunder. On 26th June, 1950, a notice under Section 11 (5) of the Act in Form XII for the period 1st June, 1947, to 26th June, 1950, was issued to the dealer and he received it on 4th July, 1950. An enquiry was held and, thereupon, on 21st June, 1954, a fresh notice under Section 11 (5) of the Act in Form XII for the period 8th October, 1948, to 6th November, 1953, was issued to the dealer, who received it on 2nd June, 1955 (sic ). In due course, on 2nd June, 1955, the sales made by the dealer during that period were assessed to tax. In the second appeal, out of which this reference arises, the dealer unsuccessfully urged that the word "period" occurring in Section 11 (5) should be construed as meaning a quarter, for which period a dealer is required by the rules framed under the Act to furnish his return.

(3.) SECTION 11 (5) of the Act reads : If upon information which has come into his possession, the Commissioner is satisfied that any dealer has been liable to pay tax under this Act in respect of any period and has nevertheless wilfully failed to apply for registration, the Commissioner shall, at any time within three calendar years from the expiry of such period, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, proceed in such manner as may be prescribed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of tax due from the dealer in respect of such period and all subsequent periods; 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 not exceeding one and a half times that amount. The material part of the sub-section is that if a dealer "has been liable to pay tax under this Act in respect of any period", then the amount of tax payable may be assessed "at any time within three calendar years from the expiry of such period". While it is urged on behalf of the revenue that the period, which is not denned in the Act, means the entire period during which the dealer was liable to pay tax the dealer contends that it should be construed as meaning a quarter for which, under Rule 19, every registered dealer is required to furnish a return. Shri Tankha, the learned counsel for the dealer, strongly relies upon Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 S. T. C. 387. In that case, a registered dealer had furnished his returns in respect of a period but failed to comply with a notice under Section 11 (2) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Supreme Court held that, since the returns were required to be furnished quarterly, the word period meant a quarter. That case is easily distinguishable because it dealt with the case of a registered dealer, who had furnished the prescribed returns. In the instant case, there is an unregistered dealer not required to furnish returns. Further, unless the context so requires, a word cannot be construed on the basis of rules made by a subordinate authority. Such rules cannot control the construction to be placed on the provisions of the Act. So, in The Great Fingall Consolidated Ltd. v. Sheehan, 3 Com. L. R. 176 at 184, Griffith, C. J. , observed: I cannot assent to the argument that a regulation made by the Governor can be used for the purpose of construing the statute under which it is made.