Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Jaipuria Brothers Co vs State Of Uttar Pradesh A Others on 21 October, 1964

K. Chinnathambi Gounder And Anr. vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu, ... on 22 June, 1979

In. Jaipuri Brothers Ltd. v. State of U.P. , which arose under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, the assessee's contention was that the re-assessment proceedings were barred by limitation. This was not accepted by the, High Court because, in its view, the three years' period prescribed under the Act would be, attracted only if the assessing officer exercised his suo motu powers of revision, but it will have no application if the re-assessment was sought to be made in pursuance of an order passed by an appellate" or revisional authority. It was this differentiation in the application of the period of limitation, that was disapproved by the Supreme Court in the case referred to above. No such situation exists here. Moreover, the application of the maxim actus curiae neminem gravdbit did not arise for consideration in that case.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 28 - S Natarajan - Full Document

K.C. Gounder And Anr. vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. on 22 June, 1979

In Jaipuria Brothers Ltd. v. State of U. P., which arose under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, the assessee's contention was that the re-assessment proceedings were barred by limitation. This was not accepted by the High Court because, in its view, the three years' period . prescribed under the Act would be attracted only if the assessing officer exercised his suo motu powers of revision, but it will have no application if the reassessment was sought to be made in pursuance of an order passed by an appellate or revisional authority It was this differentiation in the application of the period of limitation, that was disapproved by the Supreme Court in the case referred to. above. No such situation exists here. Moreover, the application of the maxim actus curiae nerninem gravabit did not arise for consideration in that case.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.B. Gurbax Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 April, 1975

In Jaipuria Brothers Limited v. State of U.P. [1965] 16 S.T.C. 494 (S.C.), Shah, J. (speaking on behalf of Subba Rao and S.M. Sikri, JJ., who constituted the Bench), was concerned with Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, before it was amended by Act 19 of 1956, under which there could be no order of assessment or reassessment either by the Sales Tax Officer suo motu or pursuant to the direction of the appellate or revising authority after the expiry of a period of three years prescribed by this statute. Under Section 21, as amended, the power may be exercised by the Sales Tax Officer suo motu within four years from assessment or reassessment. That power could be exercised under the first proviso within a further period of One year if a notice under Sub-section (2) 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 appellate or revisional authority or under an order of the High Court under Section 11. It was held that Section 21, as amended during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court, was retrospective from the date on which the principal Act came into operation and the amended section must be deemed to have been on the statute book on the date on which the revising authority passed this order. The assessing authority, therefore, had power under the amended section to proceed with the assessment of the assessed for the year 1948-49. The further facts of that case were that the Sales Tax Officer had made a best judgment assessment of a public limited company on 31st March, 1952, in respect of the assessment year 1948-49, which was set aside by the Judge (Appeals), Sales Tax, on the ground that the appellant-company was not a dealer. But this order was set aside by the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, on 28th March, 1955, and it was remanded to the Sales Tax Officer for fresh assessment. Then notice was issued by the Sales Tax Officer for production of account books, etc., on 23rd July, 1955, for the purpose of the assessment year 1948-49. A single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, on being moved for the issue of a writ under Article 226, held that the assessment sought to be made was clearly barred by time under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. But this order was reversed by a Division Bench on appeal, which held that in view of the order of remand, which ordered a fresh assessment the period of limitation did not apply. There was a further appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court which confirmed the decision of the Division Bench, but on different grounds.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

K. Somasundaram vs The State Of Madras on 30 July, 1975

In Jaipuria Brothers Ltd. v. State of U.P. [1965] 16 S.T.C. 494 (S.C.), the facts were these: Under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, before it was amended by Act 19 of 1956 there could be no order of assessment or reassessment by the Sales Tax Officer, after the expiry of the period of three years prescribed by the statute. In respect of the assessment year 1948-49 the original assessment was set aside by the appellate authority on the ground that the assessee was not a dealer. But, on a further revision, by order dated 28th March, 1955, the revising authority set aside that order of the appellate authority and remanded the case to the Sales Tax Officer for fresh assessment. In the fresh assessment proceedings, it was contended by the assessee that as the original assessment was set aside by the revising authority and then the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, no proceeding in connection with that assessment was pending and the reassessment was barred because more than three years had elapsed since the end of the order of assessment. The Sales Tax Officer rejected this contention and insisted on the production of the records as directed earlier. Thereupon, the assessee filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad praying for the writ of prohibition restraining the Sales Tax Officer from proceeding with the assessment and also for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the revising authority and the proceedings taken for reassessment. The learned single Judge held that the assessment sought to be made by the Sales Tax Officer pursuant to the order of the revising authority was clearly barred by limitation in view of Section 21 of the Act. But a Division Bench reversed the order holding that the assessing officer was only acting in compliance with the direction given by the revising authority and that to such assessment proceedings the bar of limitation prescribed by Section 21 of the Act did not apply. On a further appeal, the Supreme Court held that the limitation of three years fixed under Section 21 applied on the language used in that section even to a case where assessments are sought to be made in pursuance of the directions of the appellate or revisional authority and that, therefore, the Division Bench was not correct in allowing the appeal. But the order of the High Court was confirmed on the ground that during the pendency of the proceedings in the Supreme Court Section 21 was extensively amended to the effect that when reassessment is sought to be made in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the appellate or revisional authority or under an order of the High Court, it could be done without limit of time. The Supreme Court also held that when a section is amended with retrospective effect it would apply to all pending proceedings and that when an appellate or revising authority sets aside the order of assessment and remands the case for fresh assessment, the proceeding is still pending and that to such a proceeding the amending Act would apply.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

East India Corporation vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 31 December, 1977

The learned counsel for the revenue invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jaipuria Brothers Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1965] 16 S.T.C. 494 (S.C.), which does not, however, help the revenue having regard to the fact that in that case Section 21 of the relevant Act was amended during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court with retrospective effect from the date when the principal Act came into operation and that the proviso in the amended section stated that nothing contained in the section limiting the time within which any assessment or reassessment may be made shall apply to an assessment or reassessment made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under Section 9, 10 or 11 of that Act. There is no such provision in the Acts with which we are concerned in this case.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sales Tax Officer And Two Ors. vs V.V. Pathrose on 16 October, 1978

6. Counsel for the respondent-assessee placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jaipuria Brothers Ltd. v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1213 at 1216. If the facts of the case are properly understood, there should be no dispute in appreciating the actual decision or the principle involved. In that case, the Sales Tax Officer issued a notice on 23rd July, 1955, for the purpose of assessment for the year 1948-49. The assessee contended that, as the original assessment under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act had been set aside by the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, no proceeding in connection with that assessment was pending, and reassessment was barred, as more than three years had elapsed since the end of the year of assessment. The Division Bench of the High Court ultimately took the view that the Sales Tax Officer was competent to revise the order in view of the order of remand which directed the officer to make a fresh assessment against the assessee. The High Court was of the view that the Sales Tax Officer was bound to comply with this direction of the appellate authority, and that assessment proceedings carried out in pursuance of such a direction from the appellate authority could not be governed by the period of limitation prescribed by Section 21 of the Act. It is pertinent to notice that Section 21 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, as quoted in the judgment, read as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Alliance Infrastructure Projects ... vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 3 December, 2024

NC: 2024:KHC:49806-DB WA No. 3965 of 2019 Supreme Court in the case of Jaipuria Brothers Limited (supra). In the said case the facts were, on March 20, 1952, the Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur, issued a notice under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act 1948, calling upon the appellant/Company to file a return of its turn over for the Assessment Year 1948-49 on the ground that the turn over had escaped assessment. On March 31, 1952, the Sales Tax Officer has made a best judgment assessment and determined the taxable turn over of the appellant/Company at Rs.50/- for the year 1948-49 and determined the appropriate tax liability. In appeal to the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax, the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer was set aside by holding that the appellant/company was not a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. But, the order of the Appellate Authority was set aside by the Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, by order dated March 28, 1955 and the case was remanded to the Sales Tax Officer for fresh assessment. In the view of the Judge (Revisions), it was necessary to
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Punjab And Anr. vs Bhagat Ram Amar Nath on 6 October, 1971

15. Jaipuria Brothers Limited's case, [1965] 16 S.T.C. 494 (S.C.), a case which the Full Bench decision in Om Parkash Seth's case, I.L.R. (1970) 1 Punj. & Har. 246 proceeds, was itself a case of escaped assessment and the learned Judges of the Full Bench held that if the proceedings were in respect of escaped income, Section 11A would apply. Nature of proceedings will not change on the case being remanded to the assessing authority.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Assessing Authority, Amritsar And ... vs Om Parkash Seth on 22 May, 1969

7. The present appeal has been filed by the Assessing Authority, Amritsar, and the Assistant Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. In support of it, the learned Advocate General for the State of Punjab has contended that the fresh proceedings taken by the assessing authority in pursuance of the order of remand by the Assistant Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner were not fresh proceedings but were continuation of the proceedings that had been taken earlier and in respect of which orders had been passed on February 16, 1960 and December 16, 1960. That contention has no force in view of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jaipuria Brothers Ltd., (1965) 16 STC 494 = (AIR 1965 SC 1213) (Supra). The assessing authority, after the order of remand, issued a fresh notice to the respondent for reassessment as a part of the turnover had escaped assessment because of the deductions that had been held by the revising authority to have been wrongly allowed. It was open to the Commissioner to redetermine the quantum of turnover liable to tax while exercising the revisional powers but once he decided to direct the assessing authority to make a reassessment in accordance with law, the proceedings for reassessment were fresh proceedings which were Governed by the period of limitation prescribed in Section 11-A of the Act. The learned Advocate General has put forth an argument that since the original assessment order was passed on best judgment the nature of the proceedings after remand remained the same. Even if that be so, the same period of limitation is provided in Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 11 which govern the orders of assessment based on best judgment.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next