- (1.) "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amendment of section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, by Act No. 13 of 1964, whereby the words 'eight years' were substituted and deemed always to have been substituted for the words 'four years', authorizes the reopening of a case such as this under the section where the earlier limitation of four years had already expired before the date of the amendment ?"
(2.) BY virtue of the amendment of section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, now this reference/application is considered as revision/application and is disposed of accordingly. The brief facts of the case are that the assessing authority, Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jaipur, issued the notice for reassessment under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1957-58 on February 19, 1966 and created the demand in the reassessment proceedings rejecting the contention of the assessee that the period of limitation for completing the assessment was 4 years at the relevant time which has since expired and no further action can be taken. Against this order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals ). The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) held that the proceedings initiated for reassessment under the Central Sales Tax Act are barred by limitation and quashed the reassessment order. Against this order, a revision was preferred to the Board of Revenue. The revision preferred by the assessing authority was rejected. The special appeal preferred was also rejected. An application was submitted to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer for making reference to this Court and the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue has referred the above question of law for decision. Now in accordance with the amendment in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act the reference application has been treated as revision application and the same is decided accordingly. The contention of the learned Government Advocate is that the amendment of section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act by Act No. 13 of 1964 was retrospective in nature whereby the period of limitation was extended for making the reassessment from 4 years to 8 years and since the notice for reassessment was issued in this case on February 19, 1966 calling upon the assessee to appear on March 5, 1966, the initiation of proceedings being within the period of limitation, the authorities below were not justified in quashing the assessment as barred by limitation. The contention of the learned advocate Shri Sagar Mal Mehta on behalf of the assessee is that the limitation during the relevant period of assessment was 4 years and since the same has lapsed the extended period of limitation cannot be applied to those cases where the limitation of 4 years has already come to an end. The provisions of limitation are procedural in nature and shall apply to all the pending cases. If the limitation has already expired then even by a subsequent amendment the extended period of limitation will not apply. If an amendment is retrospective in nature, it will cover only those cases where the right to make the assessment has not expired. If once the right of the assessing authority for reassessment has already come to an end, the assessee acquires a right not to be assessed and, therefore, the subsequent amendment extending the period of limitation will not revive, the right of the assessing authority which has already come to an end. The amending Act does not provide that the extended period of limitation shall be applied even to those cases where the limitation has already expired. In the present case the limitation in accordance with the provision of section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act as it stood at the relevant time was four years which has already lapsed and therefore it has to be seen as to whether the retrospective amendment would give right to the assessing authority to reopen the cases where such right has once come to an end. In J. P. Jani, Income-tax Officer v. Induprasad Devshankar Bhatt [1969] 72 ITR 595 the honourable Supreme Court has held that the new section must be read as applicable only to those cases where the right of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment was not barred under the repealed section. It was further observed by their Lordships that the new statute does not disclose in express terms or by way of necessary implication that there was a revival of the right of the Income-tax Officer to reopen the assessment which has already been barred under the old Act. This case was not considering the amendment which was given retrospective effect. However, a Division Bench of this Court held in Firm Chaturbhuj Rikhabdas v. State of Rajasthan ILR (1958) 1 Raj 947 that the amendment though retrospective in operation does not suggest that assessment which had already been made would also be reopened because of this retrospective amendment. In the absence of specific provision to that effect, the amendment, therefore, would not touch assessment which had already been made. Following this binding judgment of this Court, I am of the view that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Board of Revenue were justified in declaring that the proceeding initiated after the lapse of 4 years were barred by limitation and the reassessment order was rightly quashed. The revision is rejected. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. . ;