9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (7) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 58, 1958-59 and 1959-60-the company filed its returns and the Assessing Authority made an order of assessment in each case. For the year 1957-58 the Assessing Authority made its decision on the 19th February, 1959. For the next year 1958-59, the decision was made on the 14th of July, 1959, and for the following year 1959-60, it was made on the 7th of October, 1960. The appellant-company was satisfied with these decisions and as we understand, no tax under the Central Sales Tax Act was levied. Later on, this omission was noticed by the Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, who, therefore, issued three notices in respect of the three years and the notices, which were identical, were issued on the 18th August, 1962. The Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner said that he had "decided to take suo motu action under section 21(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948", as he was not satisfied with the legality and propriety of the orders previously made by the Assessing Authority, the intention behind these notices obviously being to reopen the previous decisions. The appellantcompany objected to that and having found out that tax under the Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were therefore entitled to levy the tax. Shamsher Bahadur, J., did not accept the appellant's submission on the first question and held that the Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner was competent to revise an order of the Assessing Authority at any time and was not bound by the period of three years mentioned in section 11-A of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act and on this view concluded that the power of revision intended to be exercised under section 21 of that Act could not be questioned. The first ground, therefore, failed. On the second question, the learned Judge felt satisfied that the tax sought to be levied under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in connection with inter-State sales could be levied only in the State of Maharashtra from where the movement of the goods had admittedly started and that it was only the authorities in the State of Maharashtra that were competent to assess, collect and enforce the payment of tax on behalf of the Government of India. In spite of this conclusion, the learned Judge felt that it was unnecessary to issue any writ in the present cases as the Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner had merely issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on had for purposes of reassessment by an Assessing Authority been fixed in section 11-A. The conclusion, in my opinion, must be that the Legislature did not intend to fetter the power of the Commissioner under section 21 by any rule of limitation and, therefore, left it to the Commissioner's discretion to exercise his power at any time. Mr. Bhagirath Dass says that it is improbable that such power unlimited in time could have been entrusted to the Commissioner, but I can find nothing improbable about it, and the argument that the Commissioner may decide to reopen a matter settled twenty or thirty years previously, does not lead anywhere. The power of revision mentioned in section 21 is altogether separate from and unconnected with the power of reassessment by an Assessing Authority under section 11-A of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner had authority to revise the previous orders made by the Assessing Authority in the present cases. On the second question, however, Mr. Bhagirath Dass is on fairly firm ground. The Additional Assistant Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the State from which the movement of goods started provided, of course, the tax is on a sale effected in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. In the present cases, the sales in question are admittedly sales effected in the course of interState trade and, as the learned Single Judge has said, there can be no doubt at all that tax on such inter-State sales can be levied and collected only in the State from where the goods began to be moved, which in the present cases is admitted to be the State of Maharashtra. Nothing much has been said in opposition to this view on behalf of the respondents and it appears quite clearly that the view of law, in pursuance of which the Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner thought that he could deal with the disputed sales, is not sound. It is said in this connection that, in any case, the Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner has not really done anything illegal so far and it is unnecessary to issue any writ. It is however, clear that notices have been issued and those notices require the appellant to appear and submit to the jurisdiction of the Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
