BAHADUR CHAND CHAMAN LAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this court by its order dated 17th August, 1964, had directed the Financial Commissioner to state the case and refer the following questions of law : (a) Whether the learned Financial Commissioner was not bound to decide the case on merits in view of the fact that there was no period of limitation prescribed for filing the petition for revision under Section 21 (3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 ? (b) Whether the learned Financial Commissioner was justified in dismissing the revision petition in limine on the ground of delay, especially when there is no limitation prescribed ?

(2.) ON a reference to the record we find that the statement of the case in:the reference made by the Financial Commissioner is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 22 (3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "act" ). We were first inclined to remand the case for the requisite reference to be drawn up but in view of the issues raised and the scanty reference to facts which is necessary, we are not adopting the said course.

(3.) MESSRS Bahadur Chand Chaman Lal, petitioners, are a partnership concern duly registered under the Act and are engaged in the business of commission agents dealing in ghee. For the assessment year 1955-56 the petitioner-firm filed all the quarterly returns for that year showing a gross turnover of Rs. 21,976-4-9 claiming certain deductions on account of sales to registered dealers under Section 5 (2) (b) of the Act. The assessing authority, however, made additions to the taxable turnover which effected an addition of Rs. 8,694. 25 np. to the sales tax already paid by the petitioner-firm. Against this order the petitioner-firm went up in appeal which was rejected by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and similarly the revision filed under Section 21 of the Act met the same fate at the hands of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner on the 27th October, 1961. Thereafter a further revision was moved by the petitioner to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) which was received by him on 23rd February, 1962. On the 5th April, 1962, the learned Financial Commissioner rejected this revision petition in limine on the ground that the same was barred by time. Thereupon the petitioner moved an application before the Financial Commissioner under Section 22 (1) praying for referring the question of law arising from the earlier order but this was also disallowed on the 27th of July, 1963. Thereafter the petitioner moved this court and obtained the order of the Division Bench referred to above.