S B PERIASAMI NADAR AND COMPANY Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a firm of merchants trading in salt and funnies at Anna Pillai Street, Madras. For the assessment year 1953-54 they obtained a licence under section 8 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. THEy submitted their return for the licence turnover of their business in the appropriate statutory form, Form VI. THE Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Peddunaickenpet, checked their accounts and found that the transactions entered in their accounts were covered by the licence granted under section 8 and were exempt from tax. THEy used their own gunnies for packing the goods sent to their principles, the dealers on whose behalf they acted as agents, and the value of the gunnies so used for packing the goods and supplied to the principals was Rs. 2, 515-9-0. THEir total sales turnover for the year was therefore fixed in the sum of Rs. 2, 515-9-0 by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. In consequence of this order of assessment they were not liable to pay any tax and no demand under Form B was issued to them. THEy had not collected any sales tax and therefore no demand notice was sent under Form B-2. THE order of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer is dated 28th December, 1954.

(2.) THE Commercial Tax Officer, North Madras, exercised his powers of revision under section 12 of the Act suo motu and notice of these proceedings was given to the petitioner. THE records were called for from the file of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and after hearing the objections of the petitioner, the revising authority fixed the total taxable turnover as Rs. 54, 029-15-6. THE order of the Commercial Tax Officer is dated 18th September, 1958. THE petitioner preferred an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, against the order of the Commercial Tax Officer in revision, but was unsuccessful. THE Tribunal by its order dated 30th May 1959, affirmed the decision of the Commercial Tax Officer. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner, challenging the correctness of the order of the Appellate Tribunal affirming the order of the Commercial Tax Officer.Learned counsel for the petitioner raised no contest in regard to the addition of the sum of Rs. 51, 514-6-6 to the taxable turnover made by the Commercial Tax Officer. It is however urged that the Commercial Tax Officer exceeded his jurisdiction in exercising the revisional powers beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 12(4) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, and in invoking such powers when there was no valid order of assessment passed by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. THE order of the Appellate Tribunal is challenged on the ground that the Tribunal failed to interpret correctly and properly the provisions of section 12 of the Act.

(3.) THE revising authority is empowered to admit an application preferred after the period of sixty days aforesaid, if the authority is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the period fixed. This is provided for under section 12(5) of the Act. On the plain words of sections 12(4) and 12(5) the terminus-a-quo of the starting point of the period of limitation of three years or the sixty days as the case may be is the date on which the order was communicated to the assessee. It is quite clear that the limitation period cannot commence or begin to run from the very date of the order. It is not permissible to disregard the express words occurring in section 12(4), namely, "the date on which the order was communicated to the assessee"' or the equally plain words in section 12(5), namely, "the date on which the order or proceeding to which the application relates was communicated to the applicant". It is interesting to note that the provisions of sections 12(4) and 12(5) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act are sharply in contrast with the provisions of section 33-A and section 33-B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 which provide a revisional jurisdiction to the Commissioner of Income-tax. Section 33-A, quoting the relevant words prescribing limitation, is as follows :"Provided that the Commissioner shall not revise any order under this sub-section if ...... (c) the order has been made more than one year previously." Section 33-B which empowers the Commissioner to revise the order of Income-tax Officer prescribes the period of limitation in the following way :