MUNSHI RAM KHERU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, has referred the following two questions of law to us for opinion under Section 22 (1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act): (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, service of notice in form S. T. XIV on the assessee on 23rd December, 1969, after the expiry of limitation for first and part of second quarters and in framing the best judgment assessment for the year 1964-65 on 26th March, 1970, is legally valid ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Tribunal that objection regarding limitation not having been raised before the Assessing Authority could not be raised before it is legally valid and whether the Tribunal was justified-in invoking the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act ?

(2.) THE facts giving rise to-this case may briefly be stated as under: The assessee is a karyana dealer registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. For the assessment year 1964-65, the assessee filed two quarterly returns under Section 10 (4) of the Act. It appears that no return was filed for the first as well as the last quarter relating to that year. The Assessing Authority served a notice in form S. T. XIV on the assessee in response to which the assessee appeared through an Advocate before it on 31st December, 1969, who applied for the adjournment of the case on the ground of illness of his senior counsel. It appears that the assessee took up the position with the Assessing Authority that all the relevant returns had been filed but it failed to adduce any satisfactory evidence in support of this averment. The case was adjourned to 26th March, 1970, when no one appeared on behalf of the assessee and the Assessing Authority framed an assessment determining the gross turnover for the first quarter at Rs. 2,00,000. 00 and for the fourth quarter at Rs. 1,00,000. 00.

(3.) THE assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ludhiana, which was dismissed. It appears that before the first appellate authority it was not argued that proceedings regarding the best judgment assessment qua the first quarter of the relevant assessment year had become barred by time.