9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The proceedings were initiated under section 11-A of the Act and notice in form XIX was served on the assessee on 23rd December, 1968. The assessee appeared before the Assessing Authority and raised the following three objections: (1) The Additional Excise and Taxation Officer was not competent to deal with the cases since a proper order was not passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer, in-charge of the district, transferring the proceedings relating to the various years to him; (2) The appellant-firm stood dissolved and the registration certificate was cancelled with effect from 1st April, 1967. Reassessment proceedings could, therefore, not legally be taken in hand; and (3) The reassessment proceedings for the years 1963-64 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction. The learned counsel for the dealer invited my attention to rule 38(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Rules, 1949, that in the absence of the order of the Excise and Taxation Officer, in-charge of the district, I, in the capacity of the Additional Excise and Taxation Officer, Sangrur, and the Assessing Authority, Sangrur, was not competent to proceed with the assessment or reassessment of the case which was on the file of an Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer. This objection is not valid. The reason is that on receipt of a complaint against this dealer on 21st November, 1968, to the effect that the dealer had made large scale purchases from various dealers, the Excise and Taxation Officer, Sangrur, in-charge of the district, v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction, it must be so done under order of the superior authority which is competent to distribute the work in the district. When the District Excise and Taxation Officer made a note on the reports submitted by the Additional Excise and Taxation Officer to the effect that he should proceed with the case, the latter officer came to be vested with the jurisdiction to dispose it off finally. The first question referred to us is, therefore, decided against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Sales Tax Tribunal deriving jurisdiction from the Act could not declare a rule framed under it to be void on the ground that it was inconsistent with the substantive provisions of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act and that can be done by holding that notice for reassessment be given within three years as laid down in rule 63 and the assessment proceedings be concluded within five years as laid down in section 11-A of the Act. This argument, if accepted, would run counter to the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur[1963] 14 S.T.C. 976 (S.C.). In that case it was held that once a proper notice for reassessment was issued within five years, the reassessment proceedings will be completed any time thereafter. We, therefore, answer the second question also against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. The two questions referred to us in G.S.T.R. No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
