ADARSH GENERAL STORES Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER SATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by this petition has prayed that the respondents may be directed to refund an amount of Rs. 97,082. He has also challenged the validity of the amendment introduced by Act No. 25 of 1978 with effect from October 1, 1978.

(2.) PETITIONER is a dealer under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, (for short, "the Act") under registration certificate No. 550. The period of assessment in question is June 1, 1968 to May 31, 1969. Petitioner was assessed to sales tax by respondent No. 1 by order dated June 30, 1972 determining the tax at Rs. 88,079. Penalties were also imposed under sections 17 (3) and 43 (1) of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively. For not submitting the stock list, penalty of Rs. 50 was further imposed in accordance with the provisions of rule 69-A of the M. P. Sales Tax Rules, 1959. Thus the total amount inclusive of penalty was Rs. 98,759. The petitioner paid the tax amount of Rs. 68,764 along with quarterly return and thus the balance remaining in accordance with the aforesaid order was determined at Rs. 29,996.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3, Commissioner of Sales Tax, being dissatisfied with the order of the Board of Revenue, moved an application under section 44 (1) of the Act before the court for making a reference to the High Court, but it was rejected on April 22, 1981. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 did not abide by the directions contained in the order passed by the Board of Revenue in second appeal; the order should have been complied with within the prescribed period, but no such compliance appears to have been made. The petitioner has challenged sub-section (8) of section 18 of the Act which was introduced by Act No. 25 of 1978 with effect from October 1, 1978 to the extent that if fresh assessment has not been made within the period prescribed under section 18 (8), i. e. , two calendar years from the date of the order, then for any reason fresh assessment can be made under the orders of the Commissioner. This part of the provisions is challenged by the petitioner that it is ultra vires of the main section itself because unlimited power has been conferred on the Commissioner to extend the period of limitation prescribed in this section.