DEVI DASS GOPAL KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by the Sales Tax Tribunal under Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE facts of this case briefly are that M/s. Devi Dass Gopal Krishan is a registered dealer under the Act and is carrying on the business of ginning of cotton and oil crushing at Moga, district Ferozepore. In the assessment year 1960-61, the assessee filed four returns of purchase tax payable for the quarters ending on 30th June, 1960, 30th September, 1960, 31st December, 1960 and 31st March, 1961, on 28th September, 1961, in which "nil" was shown against all the columns, namely, "a" to "h". Five notes were given at the end of the returns which are as follows:

(3.) MR. K. K. Uppal, who was the Assessing Authority of Punjab (Enforcement Officer, Punjab), created an additional demand of Rs. 35,041. 23 for the assessment year 1960-61 by his order dated 21st March, 1963. The assessee having felt aggrieved against the said order filed an appeal to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jullundur Division, Jullundur, which was decided by him on 9th November, 1964, by which he remanded the case to the Assessing Authority to decide it afresh according to the observations made in the order. The case came up for decision before Shri Sarbjit Singh, Assessing Authority, Ferozepore, who issued fresh notice to the assessee on 29th July, 1965, for appearance before him on 16th August, 1965. He made the assessment, afresh and created an additional demand of Rs. 38,493. 80 by his order dated 30th October, 1965. The assessee again filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and urged before him as follows: (i) that the assessment framed was time-barred ; (ii) that the assessment was framed in spite of stay order of the Supreme Court; (iii) that the transfer of goods from the head office to its branch have been wrongly taken to be the sales of the appellantfirm; (iv) that the turnover for the purpose of levy of purchase tax had been incorrectly computed ; (v) that the deductions claimed for the goods exported out of India had been wrongly disallowed; (vi) that the sales tax has been wrongly levied on the sales of edible oils; and (vii) that the computation of purchase turnover was wrong.