9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the opinion that since the issues involved in both these appeals are identical, although the judgment is not common, the same can be disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, we may refer to the facts in L.P.A. No. 463 of 1984. It is unnecessary to set out the facts in detail inasmuch as there is no dispute about most of the facts. The learned single Judge in his judgments has very succinctly set out the facts. The learned single Judge also formulated the questions of law which arose in both the writ petitions. We heard the learned counsel for the parties on the issues raised by the learned single judge in his judgments. The answers to the questions formulated in Appeal No. 463 of 1984 squa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This order was sought to be challenged in a writ petition by the respondent and the learned single Judge vide his judgment and Reported in [1984] 57 STC 308 (P H). Reported in [1984] 57 STC 314 (P H). order dated March 15, 1984, set aside the order of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and held that the appellant cannot take benefit of section 11(2) of the Act. The learned single Judge has very appropriately formulated the points and held that the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner in exercise of his revisional powers under section 21(1) of the Act, cannot make an order of purchase tax after the expiry of five years' period. The learned single Judge opined that more appropriately the provisions of section 11(5) wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21(1) of the Act. In order to appreciate the contentions of Mr. Aggarwal, it would be relevant to set out section 11(2) and 11(5) of the Act. It reads thus: "11(1).................... (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (3).................... (4).................... Reported in [1984] 57 STC 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his, Mr. Jhingan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent, strongly relied upon section 11(5) of the Act to contend that if the dealer has failed to furnish the returns in respect of any period before the prescribed date, then the Assessing Authority has to issue notice within five years after the expiry of such period. Admittedly, no such notice was issued to the respondent within five years after the expiry of the period, i.e., March 31, 1971. Mr. Jhingan, therefore, urged that the learned single Judge was right in holding that the facts of the present case squarely fall under section 11(5) and not 11(2) of the Act. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned judgments, we are of the conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
