NARAINDAS SINDHWANI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, M. P. INDORE
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Commissioner Of Sales Tax, M. P. Indore
Click here to view full judgement.
BISHAMBHAR DAYAL, C.J. -
(1.) THIS petition arises out of an assessment of sales tax for the period from 23rd October 1957 to 31sf March 1959. Original assessment was made on the 28th September 1960 and sales tax to the extent of Rs. 3644.28 was imposed upon the assessee. A notice for reassessment was issued on the 30th December 1965 under section 19 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act. The case was heard by the assessing officer who imposed an additional tax and penalty to the extent of Rs. 21,030.00. An appeal was filed against the order which is still pending.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the assessee and two grounds have been raised by learned counsel for the applicant. In the first place it is contended that the notice issued to the applicant was beyond the time prescribed by law and the assessing officer, therefore, had no jurisdiction to re -assess under the said Act. It was also contended that the notice issued was not a proper notice and on that basis there could be no proper re -assessment.
We have heard learned counsel for both sides. The facts stated above are not in dispute. The first assessment having been made on the 28th September 1960 for the period from 23rd October 1957 to 1st March 1959 till which date the new Act, M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, had not come into force, the assessment for the period which was covered by the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. Under that Act a notice for re -assessment had to be given under section 11 -A of the Act within three calendar years after the period for which assessment is made. Thus, calculating from the 1st of January 1960, the period would expire on the 31st December 1962. The notice for re -assessment having been given on the 30th December 1965 was clearly beyond limitation and no re -assessment could be made on the basis of that notice.
(3.) ON behalf of the Department a question has been raised that this writ petition should not be entertained on behalf of the applicant Naraindas Sindhwani who has filed the petition in his personal capacity; that the assessment had been made on the firm Punjab Soap Works and that, therefore, this petition is incompetent. We are unable to agree with this contention. Punjab Soap Works was a firm of partnership and under the Sales Tax Act it may be considered as a unit for assessment but it is not a legal person within the law in India and a writ petition can be filed by a person who is aggrieved by the order. Naraindas Sindhwani, being a major partner, was certainly a person who was aggrieved by that order of assessment. We are of opinion that Naraindas Sindhwani has sufficient interest to challenge the validity of re -assessment order passed by the assessing officer. We, therefore, see no force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the Department. This contention has been raised by the respondent in the other petitions also and is overruled for the same reason.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.