- (1.) THIS is a revision application by the Assessing authority against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Udaipur, dated 28-5-65 in respect of assessment for the period 20-7-58 to 20-7-59 under sec. 12 of the Rajas-than Sales Tax Act in the case of M/s. Radha Kishen Manmal of Jodhpur.
(2.) THE Assessment order was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner on two grounds: (i) the assessment was carried out on the basis of a notice served after the 4 years' limitation applicable under Sec. 12 as it then stood; and (ii) the penalty was hit by the Rajasthan High Court judgment in the case Tulsi Ram Pannalal vs. State. The departmental representative argued that Sec. 12 had been amended by Rajasthan Act 13 of 1964 substituting therein 'eight years' for 'four years' retrospectively. The words in the amending Act were "for the words ' four years', the words 'eight years' shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, substituted. " In view of this retrospective amendment, the assessment was not time-barred. In regard to penalty, he said, the view taken in the judgment, cited before the Deputy Commissioner, in regard to the validity of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules had been superseded by the Supreme Court judgment in State of Rajasthan vs. Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. (1969 XXIV STC 174) and on the point also the Deputy Commissioner's order was, therefore, erroneous. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that the effect of retrospective amendment could not be to revive limitation which had already expired. The assessment order had, therefore, been rightly set aside by the Deputy Commissioner. When the assessment itself was invalid, the penalty could not stand. I have considered the matter. The effect of a retrospective amendment such as carried out in Sec. 12 by Rajasthan Act 13 of 1964 is as if the law always was in the amended form. The effect of the amendment in this case clearly was to render what was out of limitation to be within limitation. There is no doubt, whatsoever, therefore, that the notice under Sec. 12 was within limitation. The Deputy Commissioner's order has been rendered erroneous in consequence of the retrospective amendment. In respect of the penalty, in the light of the view finally taken by the Supreme Court, the penalty was not invalid. The Deputy Commissioner's order is erroneous on this point also. The revision application is consequently accepted and the Deputy Commissioner's order is set aside. .;