9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (10) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns claimed ex parte on a failure of the assessee to appear and produce evidence in support of the version, it could be said that it was an assessment under section 11(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act? (d) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the assessment was not a best judgment assessment? (e) Whether in the circumstances of the case, the order of the joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, dated 23rd March, 1965, could be set aside?" At the hearing it is conceded that only the first question of law arises. So, in fact, the application now will be whether the said question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal, and the Tribunal was in error in not referring the same to this court in an application made to it unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 966, the Financial Commissioner set aside the order dated 23rd March, 1965, of the joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner and restored that of the assessing authority. This order was communicated to the petitioner's counsel on 3rd May, 1966. It is noteworthy that the Financial Commissioner took the view that there was no "best judgment assessment". It was found that there was no default on the part of the petitioner under section 11(3) of the Act. The petitioner's case throughout was that section 11(3) does not apply and the case was really covered by section 11(4). On this basis, an application was made to the Sales Tax Tribunal which had replaced the Financial Commissioner under section 22(1) of the Act. This application was rejected by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation could not be re-filed. However, the learned counsel for the department maintained that the application as filed on 8th May, 1968, was still out of limitation. Time was taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner to bring to our notice a decision of this court wherein in similar circumstances, it was held that the application as originally filed in this case on the 8th May, 1968, would be within limitation. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no copy of the order of the Financial Commissioner was supplied to him and limitation could only run from the date the copy was supplied. Only an intimation of the order was sent and on that the petitioner applied for a copy of the order and as soon as he obtained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
