9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (7) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a. He filed eight quarterly returns for the financial years 1962-63 and 1963-64 in accordance with the rules framed under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, who had been vested with jurisdiction by Punjab Government notification dated 30th March, 1949, of which a copy has been filed as annexure A to the writ petition. This Assessing Authority gave a notice dated 28th September, 1964, in Form S.T. XIV to the petitioner to produce all the account books for the relevant years and to appear for completing the assessment proceedings before the said authority on 17th October, 1964. The petitioner states that thus the proceedings for the assessment of the relevant quarters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent had no power to assume jurisdiction over those proceedings under the Act. By letter dated 12th October, 1964 (copy annexure E to the writ petition), the respondent informed the petitioner that the contention raised by the petitioner in his letter of protest had been rejected and the petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent with his accounts, etc. on 24th October, 1964. It is on the receipt of this letter that the petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court on or about 22nd October, 1964. Relying on the dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur, and Others[1963] 14 S.T.C. 976; A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 766., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld accordingly be restrained from proceeding with the matter. In the instant case, however, both the authorities are at Ludhiana and neither the question of inconvenience to the petitioner on account of being made to run about from place to place arises nor is it disputed that the respondent has inherent jurisdiction to carry on the proceedings. It is only the formality of an order transferring the original proceedings to the respondent that seems to be missing in this case. Similar question arose before a Division Bench of this Court, of which I was a member, in Messrs. Kishan Chand Co. v. Shri K.K. Opal, Excise Taxation Officer (Enforcement), AmritsarCivil Writ No. 2073 of 1964; [1966] 18 S.T.C. 50. , which was decided by Dua, J., an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
