Skip to content


The State of Punjab and anr. Vs. Bhagat Ram Amar Nath - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetters Patent Appeal No. 302 of 1970
Judge
Reported in[1971]28STC676(P& H)
AppellantThe State of Punjab and anr.
RespondentBhagat Ram Amar Nath
Appellant Advocate K.S. Thapar, Adv.
Respondent Advocate S.C. Goyal and; G.R. Sethi, Advs.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases Referred and Anr. v. Om Prakash Seth I.L.R.
Excerpt:
.....an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of..........on 23rd november, 1965. the assessment order was set aside and the case was remanded to the assessing authority for fresh assessment in accordance with law. a notice, thereafter, was issued by the assessing authority to the petitioner-firm on 28th april, 1967, to produce its account books for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62 on 2nd may, 1967, for disposal of the cases. the petitioner filed written objections to the effect that the provisions of the punjab general sales tax act (hereinafter called the act) relating to the levy of purchase tax had been held to be illegal and ultra vires by the supreme court in its judgment delivered on 10th april, 1967, in the case of m/s. bhawani cotton mills [1967] 20 s.t.c. 290 (s.c.). the assessing authority thereafter adjourned the cases sine die.....
Judgment:

Bal Raj Tuli, J.

1. In Civil Writ No. 469 of 1968 delivered on 27th February, 1970, is as follows:--

The petitioner-firm was assessed to purchase tax and sales tax for the year 1960-61 on 31st December, 1963, and for the year 1961-62 on 22nd February, 1965. With regard to the assessment order for the year 1961-62 the petitioner filed a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in this Court (C.W. No. 344 of 1964), which was accepted on 23rd November, 1965. The assessment order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Assessing Authority for fresh assessment in accordance with law. A notice, thereafter, was issued by the Assessing Authority to the petitioner-firm on 28th April, 1967, to produce its account books for the years 1960-61 and 1961-62 on 2nd May, 1967, for disposal of the cases. The petitioner filed written objections to the effect that the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) relating to the levy of purchase tax had been held to be illegal and ultra vires by the Supreme Court in its judgment delivered on 10th April, 1967, in the case of M/s. Bhawani Cotton Mills [1967] 20 S.T.C. 290 (S.C.). The Assessing Authority thereafter adjourned the cases sine die instead of disposing them of. On 5th January, 1968, the petitioner submitted an application before the Assessing Authority requesting that the cases be filed as they had become time-barred. Since respondent 2 did not agree to file the cases, the petitioner-firm filed the present writ petition in this Court.

2. The first point argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the period of limitation for making an assessment under Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 11 and Section 11A of the Act was three years from the close of the year till 9th January, 1963. It was increased to four years by Punjab Act 2 of 1963 with effect from 10th January, 1963. This period was further increased to five years by Punjab Act 28 of 1965 with effect from 1st April, 1966. In the case of assessment for the year 1961-62 the period had expired on 31st March, 1966, and, therefore, the enhanced period of five years did not apply. Even if that period applied, the assessment became barred by time on 13th March, 1967. The notice for fresh assessment after remand by this Court was issued on 28th April, 1967, that is, beyond the period of five years. On these facts, it is submitted that the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction now to proceed to assess for the year 1961-62, and reliance is placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in The Assessing Authority, Amritsar, and Anr. v. Om Prakash Seth I.L.R. (1970) 1 Punj. & Har. 246, wherein it was held 'that the proceedings taken for the fresh assessment by the Assessing Authority in pursuance of the order of remand made by the Commissioner in exercise of revisional powers are governed by the period of limitation provided in Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6)of Section 11 or Section 11A of the Act. It is open to the Commissioner to redetermine the quantum of turnover liable to tax while exercising the revisional powers but once he decides to direct the Assessing Authority to make a reassessment in accordance with law, the proceedings for reassessment are fresh proceedings which are governed by the period of limitation prescribed in Section 11A of the Act. Even if the original assessment order is passed on best judgment, the nature of proceedings after remand remains the same. The same period of limitation is provided in Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 11 which governed the order of assessment based on best judgment.'

3. This court had directed reassessment by order dated 23rd November, 1965, but respondent 2, the Assessing Authority, did not take any action for fresh assessment till 28th April, 1967. If the Assessing Authority had acted promptly, the case would not have become barred by time. However, in view of the Full Bench judgment referred to above, I have no option but to accept this writ petition.

4. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is allowed and the proceedings for reassessment are quashed. Since the Full Bench judgment was delivered after this writ petition had been filed, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.

5. The respondents appealed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //