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 1st July, 1951, to 30th June, 1952, 1st July, 1952, to 30th June, 1953, and 1st July, 1953, to 30th June, 1954. On the 31st December, 1956, the Commissioner of Sales Tax issued a notice under section 11(2). This notices was served upon the assessee with regard to the first year on the 4th January, 1957, and with regard to the second year on the 8th January, 1957. The contention of the assessee was that his notice was bad because it was served three years after the end of the chargeable accounting year, and this petition was field in this Court challenging the notice and for an order preventing the Commissioner to act upon the notice.

In order to understand the question that we have to decide, it is necessary to look at the scheme of the Sales Tax Act. The scheme of the Sales Tax Act in many respects is very different from the scheme of the Income-tax Act. In the first place, under the Sales Tax Act an assessee has not to pay tax in respect of the income for the previous year. He pays tax in respect of the chargeable accounting year itself. In the second place, there is no notice which has to be served upon an assessee to file his return. The staute itself constitutes a notice which renders every registered dealer liable to make a return. The third distinction is that with the return an assessee has to pay into the Government treasury the full amount of tax due from him under the Act according to the return that he has made. Therefore, under the Income-tax Act assessment proceedings are initiated by a notice, then follows a return, on the return an assessment order is passed, and after the assessment order is passed the assessee has to pay the tax. Under the Sales Tax Act the return is made obligatory under the Act itself and even the payment of tax according to the return is made obligatory. Therefore, the assessee has not to wait till the assessment order is passed before he becomes liable to pay tax. When these fundamental differences between the two Acts are recognised, the question that we have to decide will perhaps assume simpler proportions.

Let us turn to the relevant sections in the Sales Tax Act. Section 2(1) defines "year" and that is the twelve months upto the 31st March or, if the assessee has any other year, according to his option, and in this case the year of the assessee as pointed out is from the 1st July to the 30th June. Then section 4 is the charging section and it provides :-

"(1)(a) In Madhya Pradesh excluding the merged territories every dealer whose turnover during the year preceding the commencement of this Act exceeded the limits specified in sub-section (5) shall be liable to pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Act on all sales effected after the commencement of this Act."

Then section 8 is with regard to registration of dealers and in this case the assessee is a registered dealer. Then we come to section 10 which provides :-

"(1) Every such dealer as may be required so to do by the Commissioner by notice served in the prescribed manner and every registered dealer shall furnish such returns by such dates and to such authority as may be prescribed."

So it will be noticed that in the case of a dealer who is not registered, a notice has to be served by the Commissioner and with regard to a registered dealer the section itself casts an obligation to furnish the return by such date and to such authority as may be prescribed. Section 11 deals with the returns made and sub-section (1) provides :-

"If the Commissioner is satisfied that the returns furnished by a deal