M. HIDAYATULLAH C. J. AND B. K. CHOUDHURY J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is by one Kanhayya-lal, who is carrying on business as a grain merchant in the name and style of Kanhayyalal Hariprasad. He registered himself as a dealer under the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, on 18-8-1949. The petition arises out of assessment proceedings coupled with proceedings to, impose a penalty for a period from 29-1-1949 to 18-8-1949.

( 2 ) IT appears that a notice in Form No. V| was issued to the petitioner by the department asking for returns, but returns were not submitted. The Department, therefore, decided to takes action against him and started proceedings under section 24 (1) (a), as also under Section 1 (5) of the 8ale" Tax Act, after taking the assent of the Commissioner of sales Tax, because a notice served on the assessee to produce his documents was not obeyed. An ex parte order of assessment was passed against him on 25-41-1952 assessing him Rs. 771-2-0 as sales tax for the above period. A penalty of Rs. 50/- was also imposed on him under Section 1 (5) of the Act. The order of the Sale" Tax Officer is Annexure 'a'.

( 3 ) THE assessed deposited a sum of Rs. 300/- on 10-1-1953 and appealed to the assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The appeal wag dismissed on 30-9-1954 (Annexure 'b' ). A second appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax was dismissed on 20-7-1955 on the short ground that She assesses had not deposited the balance of the tax before filing the appeal. The present petition asks for writs of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the department and also for quashing the proceedings pending before the Tahsildar for recovery of the tax. It was filed on 11-10-1956.

( 4 ) THE petitioner by his petition contends that the assessment made on him was barred by time for various reasons. According to him the notice in Form XII sent to him was barred, being sent more than 12 months after the expiry of the period of assessment and also after more than three years from the commencement of the act. He also contends that the Amending Act, which came into force on 1-12-1953, was wrongly taken into consideration as determining the period of limitation and that the amended provision of Section 22 of the Sales Tax Act was not attracted to his case and was wrongly relied upon. He, therefore, asks that all the orders and recovery proceedings against him be quashed.

( 5 ) THE case was before one of us (Bhutt J.), who referred the case to a larger bench, because, in his opinion, there was a conflict in the decision given by two division Benches. They are Firm. Sheonarayan Matadin v. Sales Tax Officer Raipur, 1956-7 STC 623 (Nag) (A), decided by one of us (Bhutt J.) and Tambe J. , and ramdhan Laxminarayan v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Akola, Misc. Petn. No. 125 of 1955, D/-29-6-1956 (Nag) (B), decided by one of us (C. J.) and Mangalmurti, J. Though the learned referring Judge did not specifically refer the entire case for the determination of this Full Bench, he announced to the parties at the hearing that the whole case could be decided by this Full Bench, and on this assurance, the Full bench proceeded to decide all the controversies in the case.

( 6 ) THE point of difference between the two reported cases is as to the meaning to be given to Section 11 (5) of the Sales Tax Act, which runs as follows: 'it upon information which has come into his possession, the commissioner is satisfied that any dealer has been liable to pay tax under this Act in respect of any period and has nevertheless wilfully tailed to apply for registration, the Commissioner shall, at any time within three calender years 'from the commencement of this Act and thereafter within 12 months' from the expiry of such period, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, proceed in such manner as may be prescribed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of tax due from the dealer in respect of such period and all subsequent periods; and the Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document