UNION OF INDIA Vs. S B GURBAKSH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. S. B. Gurbaksh Singh, the respondent in this appeal, is a building contractor who is also a registered dealer under the provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi. The respondent was assessed for the assessment year 1955-56, per assessment order dated 23rd November, 1959, passed by the Sales Tax Officer. The respondent appealed to challenge a part of the assessment on the ground that the assessment order was barred by time in respect of the first two quarters of the year. The Assistant Commissioner accepted this contention in appeal and remanded the case to the Sales Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment only with respect to the third and fourth quarters of the year in question. In exercise of his revisional powers, the Commissioner of Sales Tax suo motu set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order on 29th July, 1960, after notice to the respondent. Acting on this order, the Sales Tax Officer framed a fresh assessment against the respondent on 24th September, 1960, and on that basis made a demand for Rs. 3,202. 47 as sales tax. This led the respondent to challenge the proceedings by way of two writ petitions in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi.

(2.) BY way of Civil Writ Petition No. 388-D of 1960 the revisional order of the Commissioner of Sales Tax was challenged and by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 460-D of 1960, the consequential assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer and the demand created thereby was challenged. These two writ petitions were eventually accepted by a learned single Judge (Hardy, J. , as he then was) on 2nd April, 1969. The order of the Commissioner of Sales Tax exercising revisional powers was quashed on the ground that he could not exercise those powers beyond four years of the end of the assessment year in question, i. e. , the last date for passing the revisional order was held to be 31st March, 1960. Consequently, the other writ petition was also accepted and the consequential assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer was quashed. The Union of India being aggrieved has now come before us in appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent read with section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. The only question which requires our decision in this appeal is, whether there is in fact a time-limit for passing a revisional order under section 20 (3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi.