M/S. JAIPURIA BROTHERS CO. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS
Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 780; 1964 INSC 224
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: K. SUBBA RAO , J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI
Judgment date:
Case summary
1964 INSC 224. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1964-10-21. M/S. JAIPURIA BROTHERS CO. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
M/S. JAIPURIA BROTllERS CO. v. STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & OTHERS October 21, 1964 (K. SUBBA RAo, J. C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI JI. ) U. P. Sales Tax Act (U. P. Act 15 of 1948)", s. 21-B Btfor• and aft•r ' amendment by U. P. Act 19 of 195~Scopt of. The sales tax officer made a best judgment assessment with respect to rhe turnover of the appellant under s. 21 of the U. P. Sales Ta1 Act, 1948. The order was set aside by the lppellale au1horicy. The revisional authority revised the appellale order and remanded lhe case to the sal ection could only apply to proceedings which were pending at the date on which the Act was amended, but in law no proceeding was pending because the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax had no rower to direct after the expiry of the period prescribed under s. 21 a:; it originally stood to make a fresh assessment in respect of the c 'ear 1948-49. There are two clear answers to this plea, either of which is sufficient to reject it. The revisional authority had under s.
IO: 3) power to make such order as he thought fit Jftercalling for and c::. amining the record of any order made hy an appellate or an a"essing authority and after satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order. Even assuming that the revisional D authority came to a conclusion which was erroneous in law, it was still an order which he had jurisdiction to make and that order unless set aside in a proper proceeding could not be ignored on the g:ound of lack of jurisdiction. There was, therefore, a ;J' ocxding pending before the Sales Tax Officer in pursuance of 1~. e direction given by the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax who had E ct:rccted the Sales Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment. Whether in pursuance of this direction, a fresh assessment could be made under s. 21 before it w~s amended, need not detain us.
We arc concerned with the jurisdiction of the revising authority to make the order that he did under the section as it stood amended, and not with the competence of the assessing authority to pass an •• order for assessment under the statute before it was amended. The other ground is also equally decisive. By s. 15 of Act 19 of 1956, s. '21 of the Act as amended, must be deemed to have been on the statute book on the date on which the revising authority pJssed his order, and under that amended provision the power of the as\essing authority ! o as<ess or re-assess pursuant to an order of G the revising authority w:•s not ! 0st when the period prescribed by ~ub-s. 2 of s. 21 for c:ssessment or r~-a-s~"men! expired. Under s. 21. before it was amended. there could be no nrder of assessment cir re-assessment eithec bv !
h~ Sal" Ta\ Officer s110 mo•u, or nm- 5u:mt to the direction of the appellate or revising authority after the II c11piry of the period of three years prescribed by the statute, hut under s. 21 as amended, the power may be exercised by the Sales Tax Officer s110 motu within four years for assessment or JA! PURIA BROS. v. STATE (Shah J. ) 787 re-assessment. That power could be exercised under the first proviso within a further period of one year if a notice under ~ub-s. ( 1) was served within four years of the end of the year of assessment and without limit of time when it was made in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the appell11te or revisional authority or under an order of the High Court under s. 11. In initiating proceeding for assessment, pursuant to the direction of the revising authority, the Sales Tax Officer was, by virtue of s.
21 as amended, subject to no restrictions as to the period within which the order of assessment could be made. The order passed by the High Court must therefore be confirmed. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. L2Sup,/65-7
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.