9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (5) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served on the petitioner on 6th March, 1965. The same Assessing Authority issued another notice dated 20th February, 1970 (annexure P3), for the year 1964-65 directing the petitioner to produce the account books for the year 1964-65. The Assessing Authority thereafter created liability of the petitioner under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act as also under the Central Sales Tax Act vide order dated 3rd December, 1965. The petitioner assailed that order of assessment in Civil Writ Petition No. 2544 of 1966 which was accepted on 3rd December, 1970, vide order reported as Atul Glass Industries, Faridabad v. State of Haryana [1971] 28 STC 148. It was held that before an order of assessment could be made, it is the duty of the Assessing Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruary, 1974 (P6), in the present writ. Mr. A.N. Sud, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Faridabad, in his affidavit, placed on the file, has averred that the petitioner after filing the present writ, filed an appeal against the order of the Assessing Authority dated 22nd February, 1974 (wrongly dated 22nd January, 1974) and the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeal) vide order dated 1st July, 1974, set aside the same on the ground that Mr. M.L. Kapoor, who had made the assessment, had not been duly vested with the powers of the Assessing Authority and thus was not competent to pass the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated in his arguments that the order of the Assessing Authority dated 22nd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf times that amount." The relevant part of the impugned notice (P2), which is in form S.T. XIV, reads: "(c) I am satisfied on information which has come into my possession that you have been liable to pay tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, in respect of the period commencing on 1-4-1960 and ending with 31-3-1961, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64 but that you have wilfully failed to apply for registration under section 7 of the said Act, and it appears to me to be necessary to make an assessment under sub-section (6) of section 11 of the said Act in respect of the above-mentioned periods and all subsequent periods." In the corresponding para of notice P3, which is also in form S.T. XIV, the only difference is about the year, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Assessing Authority for the first time determined the date of liability of the petitioner as 12th April, 1961 vide order dated 22nd January, 1974 (P4). Under these circumstances it is obvious that the Assessing Authority had no information in terms of section 11(6) of the Act in March, 1965, entitling him to issue the impugned notices (P2 and P3) on 3rd March, 1965, and 20th February, 1970, respectively. This contention is without any merit and in fact is hardly relevant. The Assessing Authority after having issued a notice under section 11(6) of the Act is not bound to limit the enquiry for the purpose of assessment of a particular year to the information having come into his possession ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the High Court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India has power to ascertain whether the Assessing Authority had in his possession any information as required under section 11(6) of the Act, and if found that the Assessing Authority had no such information, can quash the notices issued thereunder. Reliance has been placed on Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat v. A. Raman and Co. [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC). This contention is neither here nor there. It has been held in A. Raman and Co.'s case [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC), that "the High Court exercising jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution has power to set aside a notice issued under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authorities against him (like P6) after issuing the impugned notices (P2 and P3). The argument proceeds that assuming that the petitioner can assail the impugned notices (P2 and P3) per se, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches on his part inasmuch as it was filed in 1974. I am impressed by this contention. In my opinion the impugned notices Per se cannot be assailed by the petitioner. These notices cannot be treated as adverse orders passed by the sales tax authorities against the petitioner. After issuing the impugned notices, the sales tax authorities could pass an order against the petitioner or could drop the proceedings against him. It is understood that in the latter case the petitioner will not be an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
