AMIR CHAND SETHI AND SONS Vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned single Judge, dismissing Civil Writ No. 915 of 1972, by which the order of the Assessing Authority under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was challenged.

(2.) THE admitted facts are that during the years 1966-1972 sales worth several lacs of rupees, as detailed in the order of the Assessing Authority, annexure C, were made by the appellant-firm (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) to a dealer Messrs. S. L. Satish Kumar, Ludhiana, holding registration certificate No. LUD-III-14011. It is the case of the department that the registration certificate of the aforesaid dealer stood cancelled, vide Assessing Authority's order dated 4th February, 1966. In a writ petition filed by the dealer a stay order was granted, but it is stated that this stay was granted on furnishing security which was not so furnished. In any case, this is not material. That writ petition was finally dismissed on 17th July, 1969.

(3.) A notice, annexure A, was issued under Section 7 (4) of the Act to the assessee alleging that he has made huge sales to the aforesaid dealer of Ludhiana whose registration certificate stood cancelled and that the assessee was thus misusing his registration certificate and evading the tax due. The assessee was asked to show cause why his registration certificate should not be cancelled under Section 7 (4) of the Act for misusing the same. An explanation was furnished by the assessee. Inter alia, it was stated that the assessee was in possession of an affidavit dated 5th October, 1967, of the proprietor of the dealer of Ludhiana admitting the purchases made by the dealer and further stating that he held registration certificate No. LUD-III-14011, which was in force and that it appeared that the registration certificate had been cancelled retrospectively. In any case, it was urged that even if the registration certificate had been cancelled, that is hardly a ground for taking action under Section 7 (4) of the Act and that this is a matter to be determined during the course of assessment proceedings while determining the deduction regarding sales made to registered dealers under Section 5 (2) (a) (ii) of the Act. I am in possession of declaration forms under Section 5 (2) (a) (ii) of the Act. I am in possession of declaration forms in accordance with law from this party.