CHENNAKESAV REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THIS tax revision case preferred under section 22 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), raises the question relating to the relative scope and applicability of section 14 (1) and section 14 (3) of the Act.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are the assessees. They are dealers in oil and oil-cakes. The relevant assessment year is 1968-69. The assessees submitted the return relating to the quarter ending 31/03/1969, on 7/08/1969. The due date for the submission of the quarterly return was 24/08/1969. On the basis of the admitted turnover and other particulars furnished in the return, the assessees were assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act on a turnover of Rs. 18,25,410. 72, and were called upon to pay a tax of Rs. 45,424. 48. The assessment was completed by an order dated 2/08/1973, of the Commercial Tax Officer, Mahaboobnagar, under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Act" ). Against the said order of assessment, the assessees preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Warangal. The assessees mainly contended before the appellate authority that the assessment, having not been made before the expiry of four years from the year to which the assessment related as provided under section 14 (1) of the Act, was clearly barred by limitation. The appellate authority held that since the assessee failed to submit the return within the prescribed date, the assessment could be completed under section 14 (3) of the Act read with section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act within six years, i. e. , before 31/03/1975, and the assessment in question having been made on 2/08/1973, was not barred by limitation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The assesses carried the matter in appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The only point urged before the Appellate Tribunal was that the assessment in question was barred by limitation prescribed in the statute and therefore the assessment was invalid and unenforceable. The Tribunal also agreed with the appellate authority and held that the assessees had not submitted the complete and correct return on the basis of which the assessing authority could assess under section 44 (1) of the said Act and that it was a case of assessment under section 14 (3) of the Act and therefore the assessment could be completed within six years. Consequently it held that the assessment was valid and was not barred by limitation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed by the Tribunal. The assessees have now come up by way of revision to this Court.

( 3 ) THE issue that has been unceasingly churned by the learned counsel from every conceivable angle is whether on a proper appreciation of the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessment in question is one falling within the provisions of section 14 (1) or section 14 (3) of the Act. If the assessment is one made under section 14 (1) of the Act, it is barred by limitation. If on the other hand, it is one made under section 14 (3) of the Act, it is valid and enforceable and is not barred by limitation. In other words, what is the real and relative scope and applicability of section 14 (1) and section 14 (3) of the Act. What are the circumstances in which these provisions can be called in aid ? Let us, therefore, now look at section 14 (1) and (3) of the Act. "14. Assessment of tax.- (1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that any return submitted under section 13 is correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax payable by the dealer on the basis thereof; but if the return appears to him to be incorrect or incomplete he shall, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of proving the correctness and completeness of the return submitted by him and making such enquiry as he deems necessary, assess to the best of his judgment, the amount of tax due from the dealer. An assessment under this sectio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document