MESSERS SITALDAS & Co. vs SALES TAX OFFICER, MIRPURKHAS AND Another

1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-By an order dated the 10th of Decem--ber 1962, the Sales Tax Officer, Mirpurkhas, assessed the petitioner-company under section 10 (4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as (`the Act') ex parte at the estimated outturn of sales of cotton and cotton seeds to the value of Rs. 40 lakhs, and created a demand of sales tax amounting to Rs. 90,909 pertaining to the assessm ent year 1960--61. Sales in favour of licensed manufacturers amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs were exempted from the sales tax under section 4 of the Act. Following a notice of demand dated the 3rd of March 1965, for payment of the arrears of the sales tax, mentioned above, the petitioner wrote to the Sales Tax Officer a lengthy letter dated the 15th of March 1965, Exh. `C' on record, claiming that it had already paid certain arrears under the Income-tax Act. Objection was also taken to certain items claimed as arrears of sales tax. It was further stated in the letter that the Sales Tax Officer did not give credit for the sales made to the licensed manufacturers properly, which were of the value of more than Rs. 40,00,000 made during these years, and that it was not right to recover these taxes till the decision of the appeal or the final assessment of income-tax and sales tax for the years concerned. The letter seems to show that the years referred to in the body of the letter as regards income--tax are the assessment years 1954-55, 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59, whereas those relating to sales tax arrears are mentioned as years 1958-59 and 1959-60.

2. According to the petitioner, no response was made to this letter, and the Sales Tax Officer sent another notice, Exh. `E', to the petitioner on the 19th of May 1969, making a fresh demand for arrears of sales tax outstanding .For the assessment years 1958-59 up to 1962-63, including the amount of Rs. 90,909 for the year 1960-61. Previous to this, in reply to another application dated the 24th of April 1969, in which the petitioner had claimed that full credit had not been given for exemptions from the sales tax, the Income tax Officer had, on the 8th of May 1969, informed the petitioner that the assessm ent had been made allowing all reasonable exemptions amounting to Rs. 10,000 only, against which the petitioner had filed an appeal, which was rejected by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the 6th of May 1965. This order had become final, as the petitioner had not pursued the matter further. It was pointed out that the peti--tioner was trying to take up the matter again after expiry of 8 years merely to avoid the payment of tax. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of dismissed it on the 7th of August 1969, holding that the petition was hopelessly time-barred, having been made after almost 5J years, for which there was no explanation. The petitioner challenged this order in a writ petition in the High Court, which has been dismissed on the ground that the peti--tioner's prayer for quashment of the order of Sales Tax Officer could not be entertained after a gross delay of more than 9 years. However, the learned Judges of the High Court have allowed the petitioner a deduction of Rs. 10,000, which, accord--ing to para-wise comments received from the office of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, had already been paid by the company, and which was included in the demand for arrears made against the company.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued before us that the letter sent to the Sales Tax Officer by the petitioner-company on the 15th of March 1965, was, in fact, an application under section 30 of the Act, for the rectification of the mistakes in the assessment order, which were apparent on the face of the record, and that the petitioner had come in revision of that order to the Commissioner, under section 16 (2) of the Act, after the application was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer on the 8th of May 1969. The learned Commissioner has rightly held that the assessment order was made against the company in December 1962, and the order was served on it on the 30th of January 1963. That order allowed certain pre-emptions, and did not contain any mistakes patent on the record to be corrected. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the assessment order and could have claimed exemptions therein, which are now being claimed by him, if at all they were admissible. The letter of the petitioner to the -Sales Tax Officer dated the 15th of March 1965, referred to above, cannot be construed as an application under section 30 of the Act.

4. We feel that the order of the learned Judges in the High Court, dismissing the writ petition and affirming the orders of the Taxation authorities is eminently correct, and no interference by this Court is called for. The petition is dismissed.