JUDGMENT - M. C. CHAGLA C. J. :

An interesting and important question with regard to the question of limitation under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 arises in this Full Bench. The facts giving rise to this-Full Bench are these. The petitioner is a registered dealer and his chargeable accounting year is from the 1st July to the 30th June. He made his return and paid the tax which according to him was due for the years 1-7-1951 to 30-6-1952, 1-7-1952 to 30-6-1953 and 1-7-1953 to 30-6-1954. On 31-12-1956 the Commissioner of Sales Tax issued a notice under S. 11 (2). This notice was served upon the assessee with regard to the first year on 4-1-1957 and with regard to the second year on 8-1-1957. The contention of the assessee was that this notice was bad because it was served three years after the end of the chargeable accounting year, and this petition was filed in this Court chalcally proceeds to assess the dealer. It is only in the case of his not being satisfied that the Act re quires a notice to be served under S. 11 (2). When we turn to the rules, the heading of R. 31 is:

"Notice under Sub-ss. (1) and (2) of S. 11. On receipt of a return or returns required under Rr. .19, 20 or 22 from any dealer, the assessing authority shall serve on him a notice in Form XI."

When we turn to Form XI, that Form also has the heading:

"Notice under sub-ss. (1) and (2) of S., 11". But when we look at the contents of that Form, it really is intended to be a notice under subs. (2) rather than a notice under sub-s. (1). We fail to understand why any notice is necessary under S. 11 (1) if the Commissioner is satisfied with the re-turn. It was suggested by Mr. Phadke (who appeared for the intervener) that the Commissioner should intimate to the assessee the fact of his having made the order of assessment., We fail to appreciate why such an intimation is necessary. The assessee haying paid the) tax and no notice having been served upon him under S. 11 (2), it would necessarily follow that the tax that he paid was the proper tax and the assessing authority did not wish to initiate any further proceedings against him. Therefore, in our opinion, the only necessary notice which is requisite and which has to be served by the Commissioner is under S. 11 (2) in the case of his not being satisfied with the return made by the assessee.

(5) On the point of limitation, what has been urged before us is that we must import into S. 11. (2) the limitation prescribed under S. 11 (5) and S. 11-A. It is said that if the Commissioner can not proceed against a dealer, who has not registered himself, beyond a period of three years and if the Commissioner cannot proceed with regard to an escaped assessment beyond the period of three years, it is inconceivable that the Commissioner could have the power to postpone the assessment of a dealer under S. 11 (1) beyond the period of 3 years or that he could have the power to issue a notice under S. 11 (2) beyond a period of three years, and for the purpose of this contention strong reliance is placed on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax Bom bay City v. Narsee Nagsee and Co-, Bombay, (1957) 81 ITR 164. In that case a Division Bench of this High Court was dealing with the Business Profits Tax Act and to a certain extent the position that arose there was similar to the position that arises here. Section 11 of the Business Profits Tax Act dealt with the issue of a notice for furnishing a return of business profits. That section did not prescribe any period of limitation. S.. 14 dealt with escaped assessment that prescribed a period of limitation which was four years, and what the Court held was that looking to the scheme of the Act as a whole and reading the Act as a whole, the Court must import into S. 11 the period of limitation prescribed in S. 14, and in the course of the judgment it was pointed out at page 169 (of ITR): (at p. 2 of AIR):

"In our opinion, every Act must be constr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document