M. B. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following question under s. 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 for our decision:"whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the ambit of s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 was narrower than that of s. 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 and the word assess need not be assigned the meaning assess to tax in order to enable the Sales Tax authorities to initiate reassessment proceedings in the case where the deductions have been claimed and allowed and subsequently it was found that those deductions from the turnover of sales were not admissible on account of the fact that the purchasing dealers issuing certificates in Form 17 were not authorised to issue such forms in the absence of valid licence held by them "? ( 2 ) FOR appreciating the aforesaid question it would be necessary to refer to the brief facts of the matter as under: In the second appeals filed by the opponent-dealer it was contended that the action of the Sales Tax Officer in initiating reassessment proceedings in respect of the period from May 1970 to October 30 1970 (Aso Vad 30 of Samvat Year 2026) was without legal authority under s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Sales Tax Act ). The reassessment proceedings were required to be divided into two parts because the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 was repealed and the Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 came into force with effect from May 6 1970 The Tribunal was arrived at the conclusion that with regard to the reassessment proceedings for the first part that is upto 5th May 1970 under s. 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 the Sales Tax Officer was having wide power to initiate reassessment proceedings because it permitted reopening of assessment already made in cases (i) where the turnover has escaped assessment (ii) where the turnover has been underassessed (iii) where the turnover has been assessed at a lower rate or (iv) where any deduction has been wrongly made. The Tribunal has further held that the scope under s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 for reopening the assessment was limited one. The Tribunal has further held that the scope under s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 for reopening the assessment was limited one. The reassessment proceedings were started because after the assessment orders have been passed it was found that the sales made by the opponent-dealer in favour of four parties were erroneously deducted. In the returns filed by the opponent for the relevant period it was stated that four parties namely (i) M/s. Shah Trading Company (ii) M/s. Ranchhod Liladhar (iii) M/s. Saurashtra Traders and (iv) M/s. Swastik Oil Mills were purchasing dealers holding licence and they had issued certificates in Form No. 17. The opponent-company had accepted the said certificates in Form No. 17 and filed its returns on that basis. On the basis of the said certificates in Form No. 17 the opponent were assessed by not including the turnovers with the aforesaid four parties. However subsequently it was found that the aforesaid four parties in fact did not hold licences under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. Therefore reassessment proceedings were initiated. The reassessment orders were confirmed in appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals ). The orders of the appellate authority with regard to the period from May 6 1970 to October 30 1970 are set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that where a turnover has already engaged an attention of the Assessing Officer and resulted in an order of assessment it cannot be made the subject matter for assessment under s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 merely for the reason that it was not subjected to tax because certain deductions were wrongly allowed. For arriving at this conclusion the Tribunal has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of M/s. Chudgar Ranchhodlal Jethalal vs. The State of Gujarat in Second Appeals Nos. For arriving at this conclusion the Tribunal has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of M/s. Chudgar Ranchhodlal Jethalal vs. The State of Gujarat in Second Appeals Nos. 54 and 55 of 1979 decided on February 27 1981 For this purpose the Tribunal has compared the provisions of s. 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 and the provisions of s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 The Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that under s. 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 it was open to the Sales Tax Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings in cases (i) where the turnover has escaped assessment (ii) where the turnover has been under-assessed (iii) where the turnover has been assessed at a lower rate or (iv) where any deductions have been wrongly made. On the other hand under s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 the Sales Tax Officer would have jurisdiction only in the case where the turnover has not been assessed in an order of assessment made under s. 41 Therefore under s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer is limited to the case where the turnover was not the subject matter for assessment. ( 3 ) AT the time of hearing of the matter learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K. M. Mehta appearing on behalf of the Slate of Gujarat submitted that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chudgar Ranchhodlal Jethalal (supra) has been reversed by this Court in Sales Tax Reference No. 13 of 1983 decided on April 3/4 1991 Therefore he submitted that the question under refernece be answered accordingly. K. M. Mehta appearing on behalf of the Slate of Gujarat submitted that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chudgar Ranchhodlal Jethalal (supra) has been reversed by this Court in Sales Tax Reference No. 13 of 1983 decided on April 3/4 1991 Therefore he submitted that the question under refernece be answered accordingly. ( 4 ) THE Division Bench of this Court has in the aforesaid Reference No. 13 of 1983 held that the ambit and scope of s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act is wider than the ambit and scope of s. 35 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act; non-assessment can be for various reasons - it can be because of omission or deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee or it can be because of non-application of mind or error committed by the assessing officers in the course of assessment proceedings; if a deduction or rebate is wrongly allowed then it can be said that the turnover in respect of those sales has not been assessed; in that sense it can be said that the turnover has escaped assessment. The Court negatived the contention of the assessee that once the assessing officer applies his mind to the returns submitted for a particular year then it can be said that he has assessed all the turnovers notwithstanding his conclusion that particular sales are required to be omitted from the taxable turnover either because they are exempt under the Act or because deductions are permissible under the Act and the Rules and in such a situation it cannot be said that the turnover has not been assessed. The Court observed that the word assessed has been used in s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act in the sense of assessed to tax that is to say if any turnover of sales attracts payment of sales tax and if no tax has been paid on the basis that the turnover was exempt from payment of tax or that certain deductions were permissible under the Act or the Rules then it can be said that the tax payable in respect of the same has not been assessed. The Court further observed that the Legislature has merely changed the phraseology in s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act and that there was no intention on the part of the Legislature to restrict the ambit and scope of the power of reassessment. Sec. 44 enables the assessing officer to assess the turnover which has escaped assessment for whatever reasons. ( 5 ) AS against this the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opponent-company has vehemently submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper and that in Sales Tax Reference No. 18 of 1982 the attention of the Court was not drawn to the subsequent amendment in the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. It is pointed out that by the subsequent amendment in s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act the legislature has specifically substituted the phrase has not been assessed by has escaped assessment or has been under assessed or assessed at a lower rate. It is submitted that this would indicate that the Legislature has expanded the scope of s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act and reverted to the original position which was prevailing prior to May 6 1970 under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. It is further submitted that the turnover was actually mentioned in the returns and was held to be not liable to tax by the Sales Tax Officer becuase the said returns were supported by certificates in Form No. 17. Thus the Sales Tax Officer has actually assessed the said turnover and hence it cannot be said that the said turnover has not been assessed. Il is therefore submitted that s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act has no application in the case where the turnover is pointed out in the return and the question as to whether the said turnover is liable to tax or not is already determined by the assessing officer by holding that it is not liable to tax. It is further submitted that the decision in the case of Sales Tax Reference No. 13 of 1982 requires reconsideration. It is further submitted that the decision in the case of Sales Tax Reference No. 13 of 1982 requires reconsideration. ( 6 ) IN our view there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the opponent that a different view is required to be taken from the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Chudgar Ranchhodlal Jethalal (supra) in Sales Tax Reference No. 13 of 1983 for appreciating the aforesaid contentions we would first refer to s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act as it stood at the relevant time as under:-"section 44. Reassessment of Turnover Escaping Assessment if the Commissioner has reason to believe that any turnover of sales or turnover of specified sales or turnover of purchases of any goods chargeable to tax under this Act has not been assessed in respect of any period in an order of assessment made under s. 41 then the Commissioner may (a) where he has reason to believe that the dealer has concealed such sales or specified sales or purchases of any material particulars relating thereto or has knowingly furnished incorrect declarations or returns at any time within eight years and (b) in any other case at any lime within five years of the end of the period to which such turnover relates serve on the dealer liable to pay tax in respect of such turnover a notice containing all or any of the requisitions which may be included in a notice in the prescribed manner and assess not later than three years from the dale of service of the notice the amount of tax due from such dealer to the best of his judgment. Provided that the amount of tax shall be assessed at the rates at which it would have been liable to tax had there been no escapement of assessment but after making deductions (if any) permitted from time to time by or under this Act: provided further that where in respect of such assessment proceedings are pending in appeal or revision the appropriate appellate or revisional authority under this Act may on its own motion or on the report of the Commissioner after giving the dealer concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard pass such order as it deems fit; Provided further that the provisions of all the provisos to sub-s. (1) of s. 42 shall mutatis mutandis apply to assessment proceedings under this section". Statement of Objects and Reasons for incorporating s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act reads as under:"clause 44.- This clause provides for reassessment of turnover escaping assessment. The period for which such reassessment can be made has been fixed at eight years in cases where a dealer has concealed any sales or purchases or any material particulars or has knowingly furnished incorrect returns and in other cases at four years from the end of the year in which the order of assessment was passed. The clause also provides that the appellate or revisional authority may if the proceedings are pending in appeal or revision pass orders for reassessing turnover escaping assessments". From the aforesaid Objects and Reasons it is clear that s. 44 is incorporated to provide for reassessment of turnover escaping assessment. The marginal note also provides to the same effect. It is true that by Gujarat Act 15 of 1989 s. 44 is amended with effect from 1st April 1989 and the phrase has not been assessed is substituted by the phrase has escaped assessment or has been underassessed or assessed at a lower rate and it is further added that if the Commissioner has reason to believe that any deduction has been wrongly given or any drawback set off or refund has been wrongly granted in any order of assessment so made. ( 7 ) FOR deciding the question under reference we have to consider what meaning is required to be ascribed to the phrase any turnover of sales or turnover of specified sales or turnover of purchases of any goods chargeable to tax under this Act has not been assessed. ( 7 ) FOR deciding the question under reference we have to consider what meaning is required to be ascribed to the phrase any turnover of sales or turnover of specified sales or turnover of purchases of any goods chargeable to tax under this Act has not been assessed. The scope of the words which are used in this provision is very wide. If the Commissioner has reason to believe that any turnover of sales of any goods chargeable to tax has not been assessed in an order of assessment made under s. 41 then he has jurisdiction and authority to assess it within the lime prescribed in cls. (a) and (b ). Reading cl. (a) of s. 44 it is clear that where the turnover of sales has not been assessed in an order of assessment made under s. 41 then the said turnover can be assessed to tax at any time within the period of eight years if the Commissioner has reason to believe that the dealer has concealed such sales or purchases or any material particulars relating thereto or has knowingly furnished incorrect declarations or returns. In all other cases where there is no concealment of sales or purchases or any material particulars relating thereto or the assessee has unknowingly furnished incorrect declaration or returns and the turnover has not been assessed it can be assessed to tax at any time within five years. Hence even in cases where there is full disclosure by the assessee and yet for any reasons the assessing officer has not assessed particular turnover to tax in an order of assessment under s. 41 then the Commissioner would have jurisdiction to assess that particular turnover to tax. May be that the assessing officer has by oversight or by mistake or by erroneous interpretation of law has not assessed particular turnover to tax. These cases would be covered under s. 44 for the purpose of the assessment. The first proviso to s. 44 deals with at what rate the said turnover shall be assessed and it provides that the amount of tax shall be fixed at the rate at which it would have been liable to tax had there been no escapement of assessment. Therefore in the context of cls. The first proviso to s. 44 deals with at what rate the said turnover shall be assessed and it provides that the amount of tax shall be fixed at the rate at which it would have been liable to tax had there been no escapement of assessment. Therefore in the context of cls. (a) and (b) read with proviso to s. 44 it can be said that the phrase has not been assessed used in s. 44 is very wide. It covers all cases where turnover is not assessed to sales tax for any reason whatsoever. The ambit of the phrase has not been assessed would mean that the turnover has not been charged to tax in the relevant year of assessment. Therefore under s. 44 of the Act the Commissioner would have jurisdiction to initiate proceedings where the turnover has escaped assessment for any reason and the phrase has not been assessed would include escaped assessment or has been underassessed or assessed at a lower rate and also the cases where any deduction has been wrongly given. ( 8 ) FURTHER s. 44 of the Sales Tax Act provides machinery for recovery of tax on a turnover of sales or purchases which has escaped assessment. The aforesaid interpretation of phrase has not been assessed given by us would be in conformity with the general principles of interpretation of a taxing statute which require that the Courts are expected to construe the machinery section for recovery of tax in such a manner that the charge to tax is not defeated. With regard to construction of the taxing statute the Supreme Court has in the case of A. C. C. Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer Kota AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1887 observed that it is settled law that a distinction has to be made by court while interpreting the provisions of a taking statute between charging provisions which impose the charge to tax and machinery provisions which provide the machinery for the quantification of the tax and the levying and collection of the tax so imposed; and that the courts are expected to construe the machinery sections in such a manner that a charge to tax is not defeated. The Court has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Gursahai Saigal ( AIR 1963 SC 1062 ) and particularly the observations made by the Privy Council in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mahaliram Ramjidas AIR 1940pc 124:"a statute is designed to be workable and the interpretation thereof by a Court should be to secure that object unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that end unattainable". The Court has further observed that wherever the intention to impose liability is clear courts ought to have no hesitation in giving what we may call a common sense interpretation to the machinery sections so that the charge does not fail. The relevant observations are as under:-"32 We are in respectful agreement with the method of approach adopted by this Court in Gursahai Saigals case ( AIR 1963 SC 1062 ) (supra ). It is the duty of the Court while interpreting the machinery provisions of a taxing statute to give effect to its manifest purpose having a full view of it. Wherever the intention to impose liability is clear courts ought to have no hesitation in giving what we may call a common sense interpretation to the machinery sections so that the charge does not fail". Applying the aforesaid principles of interpreting machinery provisions of Sales Tax Act would be difficult for us to hold that the cases of those persons who have filed returns making claim that either whole or any part of the turnover is not taxable which is subsequently found to be illegal or erroneous claim could not be covered by the phrase has not been assessed. It would be a case of turnover escaping the assessment. Mr. K. M. Mehta learned A. G. P. appearing for State has rightly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharaj Kumar vs. I. T. Commr. A. I. R. 1959 Supreme Court 257 which decision is further relied upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Kameshwar Singh vs. State of Bihar AIR 1959 Supreme Court 1303 wherein the Supreme Court has negatived the similar contention. A. I. R. 1959 Supreme Court 257 which decision is further relied upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Kameshwar Singh vs. State of Bihar AIR 1959 Supreme Court 1303 wherein the Supreme Court has negatived the similar contention. In the case of Maharaj Kumar the Court considered the phrase escaped assessment as provided in s. 34 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act 1922 in that case the Court negatived the similar contention by holding that even if the assessee has submitted a return of his income cases may well occur where the whole of the income has not been assessed and such part of the income as has not been assessed can well be regarded as having escaped assessment. The Court further held as under:"we see no justification for holding that cases of income escaping assessment must always be cases where income has not been assessed owing to inadvertence or oversight or owing to the fact that no return has been submitted. In our opinion even in a case where a return has been submitted if the Income-tax Officer erroneously fails to tax a part of assessable income it is a case where the said part of the income has escaped assessment. The appellants attempt to put a very narrow and artificial limitation on the meaning of the word escape in s. 34 (1) (b) cannot therefore succeed. (Ehphasis supplied)"the aforesaid decision is relied upon and followed in the case of Kameshwar Singh (supra) wherein the Court has negatived the identical contention by holding that the Agricultural Income-tax Officer is competent under s. 26 of the Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act to assess an item of income which he had omitted to tax earlier even though in the return that income was included and the Agricultural Income-tax Officer then thought that it was exempt. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid decisions it cannot be said that the phrase has not been assessed used under s. 44 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act would not include the case where the turnover is included in the return and deduction is claimed on the basis of the certificate in Form No. 17 and such deduction is wrongly granted at the time of assessment under s. 41. In our view the phrase has not been assessed would cover all cases where the particular turnover is not assessed or escaped assessment for any reasons including the said turnover has been underassessed or assessed at a lower rate or that any deduction has been wrongly made. Further merely because the Legislature has clarified this position by substituting phrase has not been assessed by Amending Act 15 of 1989 it cannot be said that previously the Legislature never intended to cover such underassessments made or wrong deductions given by the assessing officer. The ambit of the phrase has not been assessed in the context of s. 44 (a) and (b) in our view is very wide and covers escapement of assessment for any reason whatsoever. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove we do not think that any different view is required to be taken from the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Chudgars case. We hold that the Sales Tax Officer has validly reopened the assessments for the period from May 6 1970 to October 30 1970 and that the order passed by him cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The Tribunal therefore has erred in holding that the Sales Tax Officer has done so without jurisdiction. Accordingly we answer the question in the negative that is in favour of the State and against the assessee. In the result this reference is decided accordingly with no order as costs. Reference Decided Accordingly. .