The court found that pending appeals negate jurisdiction for further assessment actions against the taxpayer, highlighting the necessity of considering tax exemptions.

1The petitioner is the proprietor of an oil mill at Alleppey. For the years 1959-60 to 1962-63 inclusive, he has been assessed to sales tax by the respondent, namely, the Sales Tax Officer, Second Circle, Alleppey. The assessment order in respect of the year 1959-60 was passed on 26-12-1960 and in respect of the year 1960-61, the assessment was made on 30-12-1961. In respect of the years 1961-62 and 1962-63, the assessments were made against the petitioner by two separate orders passed on 9-3-1964. The petitioner filed appeals against these orders of assessment before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax, Trivandrum. The appeals filed by him in respect of 1959-60 and 1960-61 were allowed by the appellate authority and the assessment proceedings were remanded to the respondent as per orders dated 20-11-1961 and 19-3-1964 respectively. In the affidavit in support of this writ petition, the petitioner has averred that the appeals filed by him before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner challenging the assessment orders passed for the years, 1961-62 & 1962-63 are still pending before that Authority and have not been disposed of, so far, to his knowledge.

2By Ext. P1 notice dated 2-9-1968, the respondent called upon the petitioner to produce or cause to be produced before him, the petitioner's accounts and documents, sale bills, purchase invoice registers, cash book, Journal, Bank Pass Book, Personal Ledger and various other documents enumerated as items 1 to 7 in the said notice on the ground that it was considered necessary to examine them for the purpose of finalisation of the petitioner's liability or otherwise to sales tax for the years 1959- 60 to 1962-63. This notice was served on the petitioner on 9-9-1968. He filed this writ petition on 11-9-1968 seeking to quash the notice Ext. P1 contending that it is illegal and without jurisdiction. This Court by an interim order passed on 12-9-1968 in C.M.P. 9197 of 1968 stayed all proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Ext. P1. It, however, appears that on 12-9-1968 itself the respondent passed orders completing the assessment for the years 1959-60 and 1960-61 and in view thereof, the petitioner has amended the writ petition with the permission of this Court by seeking to quash those orders of assessment, copies of which have been produced by him as Ext. P2 and P.3.

3I shall first proceed to consider the grounds of objections raised by the petitioner against the notice Ext. P1. His objections are two fold: In so far as the notice relates to the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, the petitioner contends that the proceedings initiated by the respondent are really for assessment of escaped turnover, though disguised as a proceeding for finalisation of an assessment, and that the respondent had no jurisdiction to take such action after the expiry of the period of three years prescribed by R.33 of the General Sales Tax Rules, 1950. In so far as the notice relates to the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63, the petitioner contends that the assessing authority had absolutely no jurisdiction to call upon him to produce books of account etc. for finalising the assessments for those years when the appeals preferred by him against the assessments already made for the very same periods were pending before the appellate authority.

4 Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that in respect of 1959-1960 and 1960-61 the proceeding now initiated under Ext. P1 can be regarded in law only as one for the assessment of an escaped turnover. He pointed out that no action had been taken by the assessing authority in the matter of finalising the assessment for those years notwithstanding the lapse of nearly 7 years and 4 years respectively from the dates of orders of remand, passed by the appellate authority. He urges that the only reasonable inference is that the assessing authority must have decided to drop all proceedings for assessment