S.N. Deedwania, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by M/s. Shivratan G. Mohatta, Station Road, Jodhpur, a registered partnership firm, who carries on their business in cement, iron and steel, sanitary fittings, etc., and is an assessee under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The petitioner -firm had been assessed up to the financial year 1963 -64, i.e., up to the end of 31st March, 1964, by the Commercial Taxes Officer (hereinafter referred to as the "CTO"). On an anonymous complaint, the CTO, A -Circle, Jodhpur City, issued a notice dated 2nd January, 1964 (marked exhibit 1), under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and under Rule 55 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") for the alleged escaped turnover for the years 1958 -59, 1959 -60 and 1960 -61. On 29th August, 1964, another similar notice (marked exhibit 2) was issued for the escaped turnover for the years 1957 -58 to 1961 -62. Thereafter, on 15th September, 1964, a show cause notice (marked exhibit 3) was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the assessment for the years 1958 -59 and 1959 -60 be not reopened under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner -firm submitted its reply on 5th October, 1964, giving the required explanation and asserted that no turnover for those two years had escaped assessment. The CTO, in spite of detailed reply of the petitioner, insisted to make enquiry and on several occasions called the representatives of the petitioner to attend the office. On 12th March, 1965, the then CTO came to the office of the petitioner and seized some books of account and documents. The petitioner protested in vain and on 25th November, 1965, the CTO again came to the office of the petitioner and seized some more books of account and other documents. The CTO again issued a notice (exhibit 8) under Rule 55A in the prescribed form S.T. 12A dated 13th December, 1968, for the reassessment of the escaped turnover for the period 1959 -60. This notice was received by the petitioner on 17th December, 1968. The petitioner submitted objections in reply to this notice under Rule 55A of the Rules and challenged the jurisdiction of respondent No, 2 for taking action under Section 12 of the Act for reassessment of the alleged escaped turnover on the ground that respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction as the notice was issued beyond a period of 8 years. Respondent No. 2 did iiot drop the proceedings in spite of the specific and cogent objection as to his jurisdiction and fixed a date for reassessment. The petitioner, thereafter, filed this writ petition, inter alia, on the grounds: (i) That the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act can only be initiated within a period of 8 years next succeeding to the year to which the tax relates. After the expiry of 8 years, the respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act. The reassessment sought to be done is in respect of the turnover relating to the year 1959 -60 by a notice (exhibit 8) dated 13th December, 1968. Respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to take proceedings under Section 12 of the Act in respect of the tax or assessment which related to the year 1959 -60 as the show cause notice (exhibit 8) was issued beyond a period of 8 years next succeeding to the year to which the tax related. (ii) The reasons contained in letter No. CTO/875 dated 13th December, 1968, supplied along with the notice (exhibit 8) showing the items for which it is alleged that it escaped assessment, relate to the year 1958 -59 and, therefore, such items cannot be made a ground to initiate proceedings under Section 12 of the Act for the year 1959 -60 by respondent No. 2. In any case, respondent No. 2 has not disclosed sufficient reasons for coming to a conclusion that some of the turnover for the relevant years escaped assessment. (iii) The notice (exhibit 8) does not make substantial compliance of Rule 55A of the Rules because the reasons mentioned in the letter enclosed with the notice (exhibit 8) are no reasons at all. It is further asserted that the previous notices (exhibits 1 and 2) were not under Section 12 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The notice under Rule 55A of the Rules which was to be prescribed by the rule -making authority was not prescribed at all till 31st December, 1964, when for the first time the form of the notice was prescribed as required under Rule 55A of the rules.
(2.) THE relief sought in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus, prohibition or any other writ or direction or order and for quashing the impugned notice dated 13th December, 1968 (marked exhibit 8), and further for the issue of a writ or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents to take any action under Section 12 of the Act in pursuance of the impugned notice (exhibit 8) dated 13th December, 1968. Further prayer for relief is for the issue of any other writ, direction or order, which the circumstances of the case warrant. The respondents filed a reply to the writ petition, which may briefly be summarised as follows: It was not disputed that the notice in form S.T.12A was prescribed on 31st December, 1964, by introducing a new Rule 55A. It was, however, denied that the notices (exhibits 1, 2 and 3) were not valid notices because they fulfilled all the requirements of a show cause notice under Section 12 of the Act and no prejudice had been caused to the petitioner. The notices (exhibits 1, 2 and 3) though not in the prescribed form are therefore valid notices. The notice (exhibit 8) was in fact in continuation of the earlier notices as would be apparent by the letter No. CTO/875 dated 13th December, 1968, which was enclosed with the notice (exhibit 8). The notice (exhibit 8) was, therefore, not beyond the period of limitation because the proceedings had already commenced with the issue of notice (exhibit 1). In the alternative, it is asserted that reassessment to be made is for the period 1st April, 1959, to 31st March, 1960. The corresponding assessment year would be 1960 -61, because the assessment under Section 10 of the Act became due only when all the returns for the quarter ending 31st March, 1960, had been filed by 30th April, 1960. The petitioner had a further right to amend the return within the next 3 months. Thus, the assessment became due for the first time in August, 1960. The reassessment proceedings had not begun. The petitioner had been served with a show cause notice only. If the petitioner is able to satisfy that no turnover for the relevant year escaped assessment, the proceedings will not be continued. In any case, the petitioner must submit to the assessing authority first and explain him his position. The petitioner should not be allowed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Honourable High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution merely on issue of a notice.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. As a result of the submissions made at the Bar, the following points emerge for discussion: (1) Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner should be dismissed on the ground of delay with regard to the notices (exhibits 1, 2 and 3). (2) Whether the objection that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Act against the petitioner are barred by limitation should be taken before the CTO in the first instance. . (3) Whether the notice (exhibit 3) substantially complies with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and, therefore, is valid. (4) Whether the notice (exhibit 8) is in continuation of the notice (exhibit 3) and, therefore, the proceedings sought to be initiated against the petitioner are within limitation.;