Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1962 (4) TMI 86

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es Tax Ordinance, 2006 Bk (Pepsu Ordinance No. 33 of 2006 Bk). The petitioner-firm carries on kiryana business at Dhuri. It filed the quarterly sales tax returns under section 11 of Pepsu Ordinance No. 33 of 2006 Bk for the period 1st April, 1955, to 31st March, 1956. It also made a deposit of Rs. 2,126.76 nP. as sales tax according to the returns made. The last quarter of the year for which it filed returns ended on 31st March, 1956. On March 9 and 10, 1959, respondent 3 issued notice in Form S.T. XIV, copy annexure A, to the petitioner-firm calling upon it to appear before him on a given date and time and to produce its accounts and documents as given in the notice for the purpose of assessment for the period already referred to above i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s published in the Gazette of 6th February, 1957. The period of two years is provided in sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Pepsu Ordinance No. 33 of 2006 Bk. Taking two years from 31st March, 1956, that period ended on 31st March, 1958. If according to rule 19 of the Pepsu Rules, which rule requires filing of the return within thirty days of each quarter, an allowance of further 30 days is to be made, the period of two years then ended on 30th April, 1958. It will be seen that Punjab Ordinance No. 2 of 1956 as also Punjab Act No. 4 of 1957 came into force sometime before the expiry of that date and so Punjab Act No. 46 of 1948 was in force when the notice was given by respondent 3 to the petitioner-firm. Now, the first four sub-sections .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion (4) of this section increases the period from two to three years within which the Assessing Authority can proceed to best judgment assessment and the period of three years is to be counted from the end of the period with regard to which a return has been furnished. So that this period of three years, according to this provision counts from 31st March, 1956, and three years complete on 31st March, 1959. Notice under sub-section (2) of this section, which is comparable to sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Pepsu Ordinance No. 33 of 2006 Bk., was issued by respondent 3 to the petitioner-firm sometime before that date. One of the arguments on the side of the petitioner-firm has been that the notice was not issued to it within the statu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n receipt of notice under subsection (2), the dealer appears before the Assessing Authority and questions the issue of the notice and enters into the controversy to establish the correctness of his return. This he does by production of evidence on his own account, and the Assessing Authority may call some other evidence to satisfy itself. After this is done, the Assessing Authority proceeds to assess the tax on the amount due from the dealer. Sub-section (4) of this section says that on a notice under sub-section (2) if the dealer fails to comply with its terms, the Assessing Authority shall proceed to best judgment assessment within three years of the expiry of such period which has reference to "in respect of a period" appearing earlier i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... notice is invalid as no notice in Form S.T. XIV has been served and under no Act or Ordinance has it been served. In paragraph 4 it says that no proceedings could be started in the case after the expiry of two years from the period in which the return was made. This is again repeated in subsequent paras of the same letter and what is stated is that the proceedings of the Assessing Authority are bad in law and barred by time and without jurisdiction. This was to raise technical objections to the proceedings against the assessee-firm. In any other respect the petitioner-firm failed to comply with the terms of the notice and did not within the scope of sub-section (3) appear to enter into the controversy in support of the return made by it. It .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates