9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and did so till the end of the assessment year 1957-58. For the year 1956-57, it showed a gross turnover of Rs. 16,41,997-4-3. Deductions were claimed regarding sales made to registered dealers for an amount of Rs. 11,06,842-14-3. The gross turnover of the petitioner for the year 1957-58 was Rs. 19,74,483.17. Deductions were claimed regarding the sales in favour of registered dealers to the tune of Rs. 8,97,301.83. The Assessing Authority issued notices in form S.T. XIV on 27th August, 1958, in respect of both the assessment years which were served on the petitioner on 4th September, 1958. At the request of the petitioner, the case was adjourned from time to time on several occasions. Finally, it came up for hearing on 15th July, 1961. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the effect that the Financial Commissioner be directed to refer the questions of law to the High Court. This application was accepted and the High Court directed the Financial Commissioner to refer the following question of law to it for opinion: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of assessment dated 24th July, 1961, was not an order under section 11(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act?" This Court, vide its order dated 16th January, 1975 (Avtar Singh Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab [1975] 35 STC 406), held that a plain reading of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 11 shows that if a dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice issued to him under sub-section (2), the order will fall wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rants liberty to produce any evidence the dealer may wish to adduce in support of his objections; and (5) Grants liberty to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon the dealer under section 11(6) of the Act. Out of the above directions, the assessee had complied with the first three directions fully, whereas he complied with the fourth direction partly. In view of the aforesaid observations, it cannot be held that the dealer complied with the notice under section 11(2) fully. Thus, the order of assessment dated 24th July, 1961, was an order under section 11(4) of the Act. Consequently, we reply to the question in both the references in the negative, that is, in favour of the petitioner-assessee and against the department. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
