9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (10) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1960, was challenged, and as would appear from the judgment of the learned, Single Judge, two contentions were advanced before him, namely - (i) that the petitioner was exempted from the levy of sales tax under section 6 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and that the exemption was withdrawn by Punjab Act 8 of 1962, which came into force on the 2nd June, 1962, and, therefore, unless there is a specific provision charging sales tax retrospectively the firm cannot be made liable to pay the sales tax retrospectively; and (ii) that the best judgment assessment which was made on 21st September, 1962, was made without notice and hence the assessment is in violation of the provisions of section 11(4) and (5) of the Act and, therefore, illegal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... azette (Extraordinary) Legislative Supplement, Part 1, dated 2nd June, 1962. Sub-section (2) of section 1 of the amended Act runs as follows: "It shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of April, 1959.11 The learned Single Judge while holding that the Legislature could validly impose a tax retrospectively, was of the view that the authorities could not recover a tax retrospectively by recourse to the deeming provision which merely withdrew the exemption and that he could not attribute to the Legislature an intention to take away the exemption enjoyed by persons who were lawfully exempted previously from the payment of tax under Act. This precise argument was considered by the Bench of this Court in Bhagwan Hotel v. Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deletion of item 49 from Schedule B in this case was by an Act of the Legislature and so the provisions of sub-section (2) cannot help the respondent. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the case sent back to the learned Single Judge for determining the second contention raised before him which he considered unnecessary to deal with. In these circumstances, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal. SHAMSHER BAHADUR, J.-I agree. The case came on for final hearing before D.K. Mahajan, J., and the learned Judge passed the following order on 27th November, 1967. Order D.K. MAHAJAN, J.-This order be read in continuation of my earlier order in this very case dated the 15th of March, 1963*. Two questions were raised before me; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f March, 1961, before the Assessing Authority, Bhatinda, and to produce the accounts of the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and that the petitioner did not appear because he thought that he was not liable to pay any tax. In spite of this, the petitioner was served with another notice by the Assessing Authority to appear on 6th of March, 1962, and was asked to produce the relevant accounts for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The petitioner again did not appear, but sent a registered letter informing the authority that he was not liable for any tax. In this situation, the Assessing Authority proceeded to arrive at an ex parte assessment which would, in other words, be best judgment assessment. The petitioner was given ample opportunity by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
