( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of L. P. A. No. 208 of 1956.

( 2. ) THESE two appeals are against a common order made by Kotval J. in miscellaneous Petition Nos. 12 of 1955 and 437 of 1954. The appeals have been filed by the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, the Deputy commissioner of Sales Tax, and the State of Madhya Pradesh against a common respondent Ghanshyamdas son of Chhotelal, Karta and Manager of the joint family firm Chhotelal Keshavram of Rajnandgaon.

( 3. ) SHORTLY stated the facts are as follows : The respondent-firm, a registered dealer, was registered under the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. The business of the respondent is carried on at several places, including Rajnandgaon, and the year of accounting is from Diwali to Diwali. The two cases with which we are dealing arise from the years 1949-50 and 1950-51. As a registered dealer, according to the rules, the respondent-firm was required to submit its return of turnover to the Sales Tax Officer. For the year 1949-50 the respondent-firm submitted return on 30th September 1950, but only for one quarter, instead of for all the four quarters of the year. In respect of the year 1950-51 the respondent-firm did not submit a return at all. A notice was issued to the respondent-firm on 13th August 1954 in Form XI under section 11, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Act in respect of the year 1949-50; and in respect of the other year a notice in Form XII under Section 11 (4) of the act was issued on 15th October 1954. The respondent-firm thereupon filed the two petitions for getting the notices declared void and for getting them quashed. The learned Single Judge (Kotval J.)by his order quashed the two notices and declared the assessment made by the assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax illegal and also set it aside. These appeals have therefore been filed by the Department against that order.

( 4. ) THE question that has arisen and which appealed to the learned Single Judge is whether Sections 11-A and 11 (5) of the Sales Tax Act control the present cases. According to the learned Single Judge, there is a period of limitation prescribed by these sections, which applies to these cases, and that action having been taken out of time it must be declared illegal and all proceedings quashed. In doing so, the learned Single Judge relied upon the case of Firm Sheonarayan Matadin v. Sales Tax Officer, 1956-7 STC 623 (Nag) (A ).

( 5. ) CONSIDERABLE argument was addressed to us as to under which section the action can be said to have been taken by the Department, and reference was made in the course of argument to several cases decided by the Privy Council and other High Courts in India on the subject of the Law of income-tax. An analogy from the limitation prescribed in Section 34 of the Income-tax Act was taken for the purposes of showing that the same kind of limitation must be deemed to be applicable to the present statute,

( 6. ) THE Sales Tax Act, unlike the Income-tax Act, is a permanent Act with a permanent department for the collection of tax. The levy of income-tax has to be renewed from year to year by the passing of a Finance Act, and assessment has to be made within the assessment year, unless authority is given therefore by the income-tax Act, To take the analogy, therefore, of the Indian Income-tax Act would be inappropriate and before dealing with the arguments in the case we shall show also the salient points of distinction between the two statutes.

( 7. ) THE Sales Tax Act first begins by giving a number of definitions, among which are the definitions of dealer, registered dealer, and turnover. We are concerned only with these three definitions, but we do not consider it necessary to quote the definitions in extenso here. The distinction between a registered dealer and a dealer who is not registered is manifest throughout the Act. Whereas in the case of a dealer who has got himself registered no notice is required to be sent to h