S B GURBAKSH SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals by certificate the question for determination is whether the exercise of the power of revision under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi - hereinafter called the Act - is subject to the period of limitation provided in sub-section (2a) of Section 11 or Section 11A of the said Act. The requisite facts lie in a narrow compass and may usefully be stated at the outset.

(2.) The appellant who was carrying on the business of execution of building contracts was assessed to sales tax under the Act by the Sales Tax Officer for the year 1955-56 by an order of assessment made on November 23, 1959. The appellant's appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax succeeded in part. He held that the assessment for the first two quarters of the year 1955-56 was invalid having been made out of the time. The case was, therefore, remanded to the Sales Tax Officer for a fresh assessment in respect of the 3rd and 4th quarters of the year. The Sales Tax Officer in pursuance of the appellate order of remand dated February 11, 1960 passed a fresh assessment order on March 21, 1960. The Commissioner, however, after notice dated July 21, 1960 to the appellant, by his order dated 29-7-1960 revised the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner in exercise of his power under S. 20 (3) of the Act. He held that no part of the assessment for the year 1955-56 was barred and directed a fresh assessment to be made. A fresh assessment for all the four quarters was accordingly made by the Sales Tax Officer on September 24, 1960. The appellant filed two writ petitions in the Delhi High Court challenging the order made in revision by the Commissioner and the fresh assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer in pursuance thereof. A learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ applications on April 2, 1969 and quashed the impugned orders. The respondents took up the matter in letters patent appeal and succeeded before a Bench of the High Court. Hence these appeals by the assessees.

(3.) Mr. F. S. Nariman appearing for the appellant contended: