Civil Appeal No 4448 of 1985
From the Judgment and order dated 26
1982 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Tax Revision Case No 23 of 1978
WITH Civil Appeal No 694 of 1986
From the Judgment and order dated 3171985 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Tax Revision Case No 205 of 1985
TVSN Chari for the Appellant
739 R Ramachandran for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
The question of law which arises in these two appeals by special leave being a common they are disposed of by this common judgment
The said question relates to the time within which an assessment can be made under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1957 hereinafter referred to as the Act  where the return is not filed by the dealer within the time prescribed in that behalf
The assessee in Civil Appeal No 4448 of 1985 is Ms Nav Swadeshi oil Mills Jadcharla Mahboobnagar district
For assessment year 1968 69 the assessee filed its return relating to the quarter ending 313
969 on 781969 before the Commercial Tax Officer of Mahboobnagar under the even though the last date for submission of return prescribed by law was 245
The return filed by the assessee showing a taxable turnover of Rs 182541072 was accepted and it was called upon to pay sales tax of Rs4542448 under the Act
The assessment order was passed on 381973 beyond four years from 3131969 which was the last day of the assessment year 1968 69
Aggrieved by the assessment order which had been passed beyond the period of four years from the last day of the assessment year the assessee filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner CT Appeals Warangal in Appeal No 5 75 76 and that appeal was dismissed on 1491976
Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner CT Appeals
Warangal the assessee filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Tribunal Appeal No 183 of 1977
That appeal also was dismissed
The assessee thereafter filed a revision petition in Tax Revision Case No 23 of 1978 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
The High Court by its order dated October 26 1982 set aside the order of the Tribunal and also the assessment on the ground that the assessment which had been passed after four years from the last day of the assessment year was not a valid assessment
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the State of Andhra Pradesh has filed this appeal by special leave
The assessee in Civil Appeal No 694 of 1986 is M section Nav Swadeshi oil Mills and Refinery at Jadcharla
In respect of the assessment year 1968 69 the assessee filed an annual return under the provisions of the on 198
1969 after the expiry 740 Of the prescribed period
The order of assessment was passed on 281973 beyond four years from the last day of the assessment year 1968 69
Aggrieved by the assessment order which had been passed by the assessing authority the assessee filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner CT Appeals Warangal on the ground that the asssessment order passed beyond four years from the last day of the assessment year was barred by time
That appeal was dismissed
Against the order passed in that appeal the assessee filed an appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Andhra Pradesh in Tribunal Appeal No 206 of 1977
The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the assessment holding that the assessment had been passed beyond time
Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal the State of Andhra Pradesh filed a Revision Petition in Tax Revision Case No 205 of 1985 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
That Revision Petition was dismissed in limine by the High Court
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the State of Andhra Pradesh has filed this appeal by special leave
The only question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the orders of assessment in the above two cases which had admittedly been passed beyond four years from the last day of the assessment year but within the period of six years from that date had been validly passed
By virtue of section 9 of the the procedure prescribed for making an assessment under the Act is applicable to the assessments to be made under the 
Section 13 of the Act prescribes that every dealer who is liable to get himself registered under section 12 or section 12 A as the case may be under the Act shall submit such return or returns relating to his turnover in such manner within such period and to such authority as may be prescribed
The material part of section 14 which is relevant for purposes of these cases reads thus 14
Assessment of tax  I If the assessing authority is satisfied that any return submitted under section 13 is correct and complete he shall assess the amount of tax payable by the dealer on the basis thereof but if the return appears to him to be incorrect or incomplete he shall after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of proving the correctness and completeness of the return submitted by him and making such inquiry as he deems necessary assess to the best of his judgment the amount of tax due from the dealer
An assessment under this section shall be made only within a period of four years from the expiry of the 741 year to which the assessment relates
    3 Where any dealer liable to tax under this Act i fails to submit return before the date prescribed in that behalf or ii produces the accounts registered and other documents after inspection or iii submits a return subsequent to the date of inspection the assessing authority may at any time within a period of six years from the expiry of the year to which assessment relates after issuing a notice to the dealer and after such enquiry as he considers necessary assess to the best of his judgment the amount of tax due from the dealer on his turnover for that year and may direct the dealer to pay in addition to the tax so assessed penalty as specified in subsection 8
 It is necessary to analyse sub section 1 and sub section 3 of section 14 of the Act for purposes of determining the issue involved in these cases
Sub section   of section 14 of the Act provides that if the assessing authority is satisfied that any return submitted under section 13 is correct and complete he shall assess the amount of tax payable by the dealer on the basis thereof but if the return appears to the assessing authority to be incorrect or incomplete he shall after giving the dealer reasonable opportunity of proving the correctness and completeness of the return submitted and making such inquiry as he deems necessary assess to the best of his judgment the amount of tax due from the dealer
In both these cases the return contemplated is one which has been filed in accordance with section 13 of the Act within the time prescribed for that purpose
Such an assessment under sub section  1 of section 14 of the Act can be made within a period of four years from the expiry of the period to which the assessment relates
Sub section 3 of section 14 of the Act authorises the assessing authority to make an assessment to the best of his judgment in three cases i where a dealer under the Act fails to submit return before the date prescribed in that behalf ii where a dealer produces the accounts
registers and other documents after inspection and iii where a dealer submits a return subsequent to the date of inspection
In these three cases the 742 assessing authority is empowered to make an assessment to the best of 4 his judgment at any time within a period of six years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates after issuing a notice to the dealer and after such inquiry which he considers necessary to make the assessment
The crucial question which arises for consideration in these cases is whether in a case where the assessee submits a true and complete return after the prescribed date the assessment should be completed within a period of four years prescribed by sub section  1 of section 14 of the Act or within a period of six years permitted under sub section 3 of section 14 of the Act
Sub section 1 of section 14 of the Act relates to an assessment which may be made on the basis of a return submitted under section 13 of the Act
Section 13 of the Act as stated above provides that every dealer shall submit such return or returns relating to his turnover in such manner within such period and to such authority as may be prescribed
The return on the basis of which an assessment is to be made under section 141 of the Act is therefore a return filed within the prescribed period and in such a case the assessment has to be completed within a period of four years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates
The return referred to in sub section  1 of section 14 of the Act cannot be a return filed beyond the prescribed date is emphasised by clause i of sub section 3 of section 14 of the Act which refers to a case where a dealer liable to pay tax fails to submit return before the date prescribed in that behalf
All cases where the return is submitted beyond the prescribed date fall under sub section 3 of section 14 of the Act
The scheme of the Act regarding the period within which assessments can be made is very simple
Assessments in cases falling under sub section 1 of section 14 of the Act have to be completed within four years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates and assessments in cases falling under sub section 3 of section 14 of the Act may be completed within six years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates
The two types of cases which fall under sub section l and sub section 3 of section 14 of the Act respectively are mutually exclusive
When once it is established in case that a return has not been filed within the prescribed period such case falls outside section 14  l of the Act and therefore the period of four years prescribed therein becomes automatically inapplicable
It clearly falls under clause i of sub section 3 of section 14 of the Act and assessment can be made in such a case within the expiry of the period of six years
While a dealer who files a return within the prescribed 743 period acquires immunity against assessment on the expiry of four years from the last day of the assessment year a dealer who fails to file a return within the prescribed period has to wait for six years to be over to acquire such immunity
Thus the Act confers a distinct advantage on a dealer who is prompt in filing his return
We are not impressed by the argument that since the returns in the cases before us had been accepted even though they had been filed beyond the prescribed date the assessments made thereon cannot be considered as best judgment assessment and therefore sub section 3 of section 14 of the Act under which it is permissible to make best judgment assessments would be inapplicable
The period within which assessments can be made under the Act does not depend upon the answer to the question whether the assessment in question is a best judgment assessment or it is an assessment made treating the return as correct and complete but it depends upon the other conditions mentioned in sub section  1 and in sub section 3 of section 14 of the Act
We may here point out that even in a case falling under subsection 1 of section 14 of the Act it is possible for the assessing authority to make a best judgment assessment as can be seen from the latter part of the said sub section which reads but if the return appears to him to be incorrect or incomplete he shall after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of proving the correctness and completeness of the return submitted by him and making such inquiry as he deems necessary assess to the best of his judgment the amount of tax due from the dealer Yet such best judgment assessment has to be completed within a period of four years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates
Hence it cannot be held that merely because the assessments in question are not best judgment assessments sub section 3 of section 14 of the Act is inapplicable for best judgment assessments can be made both under sub section 1 and subsection 3 of section 14 of the Act
That the assessment is a best judgment assessment is not therefore decisive of the question involved in these appeals
The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh vs Pyarelal Malhotra 13 STC 946 and the decision of this Court in the State of Madras vs SG Jayaraj Nadar  Sons 28 STC 700 which dealt with the question as to when a best judgment assessment could be made are not relevant for purposes of deciding the question which has arisen before us
As we have already pointed out the question whether the assessment made is the best judgment assessment or not has no bearing at all on the period within which an assess 744 ment can be made under the Act
Neither in the judgment of the High Court against which Civil Appeal No 4448 of 1985 is filed nor in the judgment of the Tribunal out of which Civil Appeal No 694 of 1986 arises adequate attention is given to the words before the date prescribed in that behalf in clause i of sub section 3 of section 14 of the Act
The High Court and the Tribunal laid emphasis only on the words fails to submit return in the said sub clause and it is on this account they arrived at a wrong conclusion
On a true construction of sub section I and sub section 3 of section 14 of the Act we are of opinion that where a return is not filed by a dealer before the date prescribed in that behalf under the Act the assessing authority has got jurisdiction to complete the assessment within a period of six years from the expiry of the year to which the assessment relates
Admittedly in these cases the returns were not filed within the prescribed date and the assessments have been made within six years from the expiry of the year to which the assessments relate
The orders of the High Court against which these appeals have been filed are therefore liable to be set aside
In Civil Appeal No 4448 or 1985 the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment of the Tribunal is restored
In Civil Appeal No 694 of 1986 the order of the High Court and the judgment of the tribunal are set aside and judgment of the Assistant Commissioner CT Appeals Warangal is restored
The respondent shall pay the costs of the Appellant in both the appeals
PSS Appeals allowed


Summary:
The petitioners challenged before the High Court the validity of a notification issued by the Lt Governor of Delhi for the acquisition of lands in Delhi for planned development of Delhi
The High Court decided against the petitioners
The petitioners moved this court by special leave
Notice was issued by the Court to the respondents on a limited point whether the Lt Governor is competent to issue a notification under section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for the acquisition of the lands for the planned development of Delhi
 Dismissing the petitions for special leave the Court HELD Considering the notifications dated 1981954 11156 and 7 9 66 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Government of India under Article 239 1 of the Constitution of India the Lt Governor of Delhi is entitled to exercise the powers of the Central Government in Delhi under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and he was competent to issue the notification impugned
The argument that after the enactment of the Delhi Development Act 1957 the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are no longer relevant in the present context and the Lt Governor has no jurisdiction or competence to issue the notification in question is not right
It is no doubt true that the Delhi Development Act makes a separate mention of the Central Government and the Administrator of the Union Territory and demarcates some functions between the Central Government and the Administrator but there can be no doubt that in the context of section 15 of the Delhi Development Act it would not be correct to understand these two expressions in different senses
The Delhi Development Act does not 762 destroy but only supplements the Land Acquisition Act
763D F 767G Express Newspapers Pvt Ltd  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors
1985 Supp 3 SCR 382 referred to