Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SAMBASIVA RAO, GOPALRAO EKBOLE, N.KUMARAYYA
Allied Exports and Imports, Gudur Nellore District - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P., Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 10-14-70
Whether the petitioner had acquired as is argued any right to be re-assessed only with three years under Rule 17 made under the repealed Act in other words it had acquired any right not to be re-assessed after the expiry of period prescribed in Rule 17.
Fact of the Case:
The assessment year in the present case being 1956-57 the escaped turnover could have been brought to additional assessment within three years under Rule 17 next succeeding that to which the tax related. Thus the re-assessment in regard to the escaped turnover could have been made on or before 31-3-1960. But before this period had expired, the repealing Act came into force on 15-6-157, according to section 14 (4) of which four years period was prescribed for reassessment which period was subsequently extended to six years with retrospective effect if the reassessment is occasioned on account of failure on the part of the dealer to provide the particulars correctly, Thus the position on 15-6-1957 was that for reassessment occasioned on account of the failure on the part of the dealer to provide correct particulars, the period was six years.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had no vested right in the procedure prescribed for enforcement of the substantive right. The procedure prescribed to enforce an existing right or adopt a remedy is not part of the existing right whether it is substantive or remedial in nature. These two maters have to be understood as distinctly separate. Thus a law which merely alters the procedure may with a perfect property be made applicable to past as well as future transactions.
Issues: Whether the petitioner had acquired any right to be re-assessed only with three years under Rule 17 made under the repealed Act in other words it had acquired any right not to be re-assessed after the expiry of period prescribed in Rule 17.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had no vested right in the procedure prescribed for enforcement of the substantive right. The procedure prescribed to enforce an existing right or adopt a remedy is not part of the existing right whether it is substantive or remedial in nature. These two maters have to be understood as distinctly separate. Thus a law which merely alters the procedure may with a perfect property be made applicable to past as well as future transactions.
Final Decision: The tax revision case in dismissed with costs. Advocates fee Rs. 250. 00.
( 1 ) THE petitioner firm is a registered dealer and deals in mica. For the year 1957-57 the firm was assessed to sales tax on a turnover of Rs 4. 94. 315-6. by an assessment order D/- 30-9-1958.
( 2 ) ON information the assessing authority after due notice assessed the dealer on an additional turnover of Rs. 1,50,000. 00 as escaped turnover by its order D/- 31-3-1963.
( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by that order the petitioner firm preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner. The appellate authority though that the escaped turnover is more than what has been found by the assessing authority. The appellate authority therefore by its order D/- 28-9-1964 remanded the case to the assessing authority with a direction to proceed on the lines suggested in the order.
( 4 ) THE firm further carried an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order D/ 9-3-1966 directed the remand of the case to the assessing officer after setting aside the order of the appellate authority. The assessing authority was asked to make afresh assessment in the light of the observations made in that order. It is against the said in that order. It is against the said order of the Appellate Tribunal that the Tax Revision Case has been filed in his Court.
( 5 ) THE revision first came before our learned brother Oubl Reedi and Madhavareddy JJ. The learned Judge felt;"the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court, in TRC No. 45 of 1965 (AP) is in conflict with the view expressed by another Division Bench of this Court in S. L Ramanathan v. Commr. of Commercial Taxes A. P. 1969-23 STC 249 (A ). "they therefore considered that the question of limitation involved in this case should be decided by a Full Bench. The matter has thus come before us.
( 6 ) THE principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that Section 14 (4a) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, which prescribes a period of six years is not applicable to the present case. The assessment year being 1956-57 which year ended on 31-357 before the repealing Act came into force on 15-6-1957 it was the Madras General Sales Tax, 1939 hereinafter called the repealed Act which would apply. Under that act according to Rule 17 of the Rules made thereunder three years period was prescribed for there-assessment. The contention was that the petitioner had a right not to be assessed in respect of turnover that had escaped the assessment after the expiry of the period prescribed in Rule 17 of the Rules made under the repealed Act.
( 7 ) IN order to understand the implications of the argument it is necessary to state argument it is necessary to state that under Rule 17 of the Rules made under the repealed Act , it for any reasons part of the turnover of business of the dealer has escaped assessment to the tax in any year, the assessing authority may at any time within three next succeeding that to which the tax relates, determine the turnover which has escaped assessment and assess the tax a proper enquiry held in that behalf.
( 8 ) THIS rule it is seen was made under the repealed Act. The said act was repealed by section 41 of the repealing Act. It came into force on 15-6-1957. This repeal, however, however would not have put an end to Rule 17 if S. 14 (4) of the repealing act had not provided a period of four years for re-assessment covered previously by Rule 17.
( 9 ) SECTION 14 (4) of the repealing Act, as it originally stood, enjoined that in the event of any part of the turnover of business of a dealer escaping assessment to tax, the assessing authority may determine the turnover that has escaped assessment and assess the turnover to tax which is determined after notice and enquiry made in that behalf.
( 10 ) BY Amendment Act of 1961. Section 14 (4) was amended with retrospective effect as per Section. 1 (2) of the said Act from 15-6-1957, Under the said amended section the re-assessment can be made within a period of six years from the expiry of the y
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
