DATU RAM KANHAYA LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common questions of law arise out of these four G. S. T. References Nos. 1 to 4 of 1975, they are being disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) G. S. T. Reference No. 1 of 1975 arises out of the following facts: The assessee was engaged in the business of karyana goods, vegetable oils and foodgrains. It came to the notice of the Assessing Authority under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "act"), that the turnover of the business of the assessee had been under-assessed for the year 1963-64. The proceedings were initiated under Section 11-A of the Act and notice in form XIX was served on the assessee on 23rd December, 1968. The assessee appeared before the Assessing Authority and raised the following three objections : (1) The Additional Excise and Taxation Officer was not competent to deal with the cases since a proper order was not passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer, in-charge of the district, transferring the proceedings relating to the various years to him ; (2) The appellant-firm stood dissolved and the registration certificate was cancelled with effect from 1st April, 1967. Reassessment proceedings could, therefore, not legally be taken in hand ; and (3) The reassessment proceedings for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65 were not initiated within a period of three years following the close of the year in question. It was thus not open to the Assessing Authority to frame reassessments for these two years.

(3.) THE Assessing Authority decided all these objections against the assessee-firm and framed the reassessment. The appeals filed by the assessee before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the Sales Tax Tribunal were dismissed. The assessee's attempt to have some questions of law referred to us under Section 22 (1) of the Act also failed. The assessee then approached this Court with a prayer that questions of law arising out of the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal be ordered to be referred to us for our opinion. His prayer was allowed and this Court directed the Tribunal to refer the following two questions of law for our opinion: (1) Whether the Additional Excise and Taxation Officer was not competent to deal with the cases since a proper order was not passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer, in-charge of the district, or the Commissioner transferring the proceedings relating to the various years to him ? (2) Whether the reassessment proceedings for the year 1963-64 were not initiated within the period of limitation and thus it was not open to the Assessing Authority to frame reassessment for the year ?