Skip to content


Banarasi Dass Talwar Vs. the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jullundur Division - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petition No. 1738 of 1972
Judge
Reported in[1983]53STC150(P& H)
AppellantBanarasi Dass Talwar
RespondentThe Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jullundur Division
Appellant Advocate H.L. Sarin, Sr. Adv. and; M.L. Sarin, Adv.
Respondent Advocate L.K. Sood, Adv. for;Adv.-General
Cases ReferredJagatjit Distilling and Allied Industries Ltd. v. State of Punjab
Excerpt:
.....persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - 2. it is well-settled by now that under the provisions of section 21(1) of the act, the revisional authority can call for the records of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or order made thereunder or may pass such order as it may deem fit......has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the basis of the material which was not before the assessing authority on the basis of which the original assessment order was passed. mr. sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contends that the reading of the notice, copy of which is annexure b with writ petition no. 1738 of 1972 would show that the material, reference to which has been made in the notice, had come into existence after the assessment order was passed and that being so, the proceedings under section 21(1) of the act could not be initiated and instead the assessing authority could proceed to reassess under the provisions of section 11a of the act. the learned counsel has relied on a division bench judgment of this court in jagatjit distilling and allied.....
Judgment:

B.S. Dhillon J.

1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1738 and 1739 of 1972 as the question of law involved in both these writ petitions is the same. In both these petitions, a notice suo motu issued under Section 21(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is sought to be challenged on the sole ground that the revisional authority purporting to act under Section 21(1) of the Act has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the basis of the material which was not before the Assessing Authority on the basis of which the original assessment order was passed. Mr. Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contends that the reading of the notice, copy of which is annexure B with Writ Petition No. 1738 of 1972 would show that the material, reference to which has been made in the notice, had come into existence after the assessment order was passed and that being so, the proceedings under Section 21(1) of the Act could not be initiated and instead the Assessing Authority could proceed to reassess under the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. The learned counsel has relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jagatjit Distilling and Allied Industries Ltd. v. State of Punjab 1971 PLR 476, which has been followed in a number of cases.

2. It is well-settled by now that under the provisions of Section 21(1) of the Act, the revisional authority can call for the records of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or order made thereunder or may pass such order as it may deem fit. The jurisdiction vested in the revisional authority is confined to only the material which was before the Assessing Authority on the basis of which the original order was passed by the Assessing Authority. If subsequently fresh material has been collected or information has been received, that material or information cannot be taken into consideration for exercising powers under Section 21(1) of the Act. In such a case, the appropriate remedy is for initiating proceedings under Section 11A of the Act. Taking into consideration the contents of the notice, annexure B, it is not possible for me to record a definite finding that the facts were collected after the said assessment order was passed. In this view of the matter, the only course which can be adopted is that the revisional authority should be directed to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law. In the reply, it has been pleaded that the revisional authority shall pass its order only on the material which was before the Assessing Authority. In view of what has been stated above, the revisional authority is directed to proceed in accordance with law so as not to take any material into consideration which material was not on the record of the case when the assessment order was passed. Keeping these observations in view, the revisional authority may proceed with reassessment in accordance with law.

3. No other point has been pressed before me. For the reasons recorded above, both these writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.


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