9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (10) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ab General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) relating to the levy of purchase tax had been held to be illegal and ultra vires by the Supreme Court in its judgment delivered on 10th April, 1967, in the case of M/s. Bhawani Cotton Mills[1967] 20 S.T.C. 290 (S.C.). The Assessing Authority thereafter adjourned the cases sine die instead of disposing them of. On 5th January, 1968, the petitioner submitted an application before the Assessing Authority requesting that the cases be filed as they had become time-barred. Since respondent 2 did not agree to file the cases, the petitioner-firm filed the present writ petition in this court. The first point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the period of limitation for making an assessment under sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 11 and section 11-A of the Act was three years from the close of the year till 9th January, 1963. It was increased to four years by Punjab Act 2 of 1963 with effect from 10th January, 1963. This period was further increased to five years by Punjab Act 28 of 1965 with effect from 1st April, 1966. In the case of assessment for the year 1961-62 the period had expired on 31st March, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is directed against an order of a learned Single Judge, dated 27th of February, 1970. By this order the proceedings for fresh assessment by the sales tax authorities for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62 have been quashed. In making this order the learned judge has relied upon the Full Bench decision of this court in The Assessing Authority, Amritsar and Another v. Om Parkash Seth[1969] 24 S.T.C. 282; I.L.R. (1970) 1 Punj. Har. 246., wherein it has been ruled that the proceedings taken for fresh assessment by the assessing authority in pursuance of the order of remand made by the Commissioner in exercise of revisional powers are governed by the period of limitation provided in sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 11 or section 11-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is contended before us by the learned counsel for the State that the rule laid down in this Full Bench authority is not to be followed as it is contrary to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Additional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore Region, Indore v. Firm Jagmohandas Vijay Kumar[1970] 25 S.T.C. 74 (S.C.). After hearing the parties' c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en Silk Mills, Amritsar, and a registered dealer under the Act, filed a return only with respect to the first quarter of the relevant year and best judgment assessment was made by the Assessing Authority at an estimated gross turnover on 16th of February, 1960. On 15th December, 1962, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, served Om Parkash Seth with a notice in exercise of his powers under section 21(1) of the Act, intimating that he had decided suo motu to examine the legality and propriety of the assessment orders, dated 16th February, 1960, and 16th December, 1960. The case was then heard by the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, on 15th of March, 1963, and he set aside the assessment order on coming to the finding that it was not proper, in view of the fact that since the case was being decided on best judgment basis, deductions on account of sales to registered dealers should not have been allowed. It was on a fresh notice issued by the Assessing Authority in pursuance of this order of remand that the Full Bench found that no fresh assessment could be made after the period of limitation prescribed in sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 11 or sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the case is one of escaped assessment and the period of limitation contemplated by section 10 of the Act is applicable to the case. The reason is that once the proceedings for assessment are initiated under section 8(1)(a) or (b) it cannot be said that the turnover has escaped assessment unless the proceedings have come to a close. In the present case, the proceedings were initiated after the respondent failed to submit a return and the Sales Tax Officer made an order of assessment under section 8(1)(b) which was set aside by the Commissioner of Sales Tax in revision and the case was remanded back to the Sales Tax Officer for issuing a fresh notice under section 8(1)(b) and making an assessment after giving an opportunity to the respondent to be heard. The proceedings for assessment have remained pending with the Sales Tax Officer and it is therefore not a case of escaped assessment and the provisions contained in section 10 of the Act have no application to the case. The question has been the subjectmatter of consideration by this court in a recent case, Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax[1963] 14 S.T.C. 976 (S.C.). In this earlier case, Ghanshyamdas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for determining whether the liability for the purchase tax was that of the respondent-firm, which was engaged in extracting oils, or that of the commission agents. In these circumstances, the rule laid down by the Full Bench in Om Parkash Seth's case[1969] 24 S.T.C. 282; I.L.R. (1970) 1 Punj. Har. 246. was not attracted, but on the contrary, the case had to be decided in accordance with the dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Firm Jagmohandas Vijay Kumar's case[1970] 25 S.T.C. 74 (S.C.). There was no initiation of any fresh proceedings under section 11-A of the Act after the remand and the effect of the remand order made by the High Court was to revive the proceedings for assessment that were initiated with the return made by the respondent-firm with regard to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, as it was held in The State of Punjab and Another v. Murlidhar Mahabir Parshad[1968] 21 S.T.C. 29 (S.C.)., that proceedings against registered dealers commence when a return is filed. Jaipuria Brothers Limited's case[1965] 16 S.T.C. 494 (S.C.)., a case which the Full Bench decision in Om Parkash Seth's case(1) proceeds, was itself a case of escaped assessment and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
