ATUL GLASS INDUSTRIES Vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Atul Glass Industries, a partnership firm, is manufacturing mirrors in Faridabad since 1960. It was not registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereafter "the Act" ). The Assessing Authority, Faridabad, issued notice (annexure P2) in form S. T. XIV under Section 11 (6) of the Act to the petitioner on 3rd March, 1965, for the years 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. The petitioner was called upon to produce all the account books for the four years detailed above on 8th March, 1965. This notice was served on the petitioner on 6th March, 1965. The same Assessing Authority issued another notice dated 20th February, 1970 (annexure P3), for the year 1964-65 directing the petitioner to produce the account books for the year 1964-65. The Assessing Authority thereafter created liability of the petitioner under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act as also under the Central Sales Tax Act vide order dated 3rd December, 1965. The petitioner assailed that order of assessment in Civil Writ Petition No. 2544 of 1966 which was accepted on 3rd December, 1970, vide order reported as Atul Glass Industries, Faridabad v. State of Haryana [1971] 28 STC 148. It was held that before an order of assessment could be made, it is the duty of the Assessing Authority to find out whether the assessee is a dealer under the Act as also under the Central Sales Tax Act and the date of liability for the payment of tax was equally to be determined. It was also held that each year of assessment is a separate unit of assessment and that the material for a subsequent year could not be utilised for the assessment of an earlier year. The Assessing Authority, Faridabad, again assessed the petitioner for the year 1962-63 and vide order dated 26th June, 1968, created a demand of Rs. 2,341. 96 under the Act and of Rs. 26,730. 39 under the Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Assessing Authority dated 26th June, 1968, which was accepted by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeal), Rohtak, vide order dated 28th July, 1971. The assessment order was set aside and the appellate authority remanded the case to the Assessing Authority with the direction to give a finding as to whether the petitioner was a dealer and also to fix the date of liability. The Assessing Authority, Faridabad, vide order dated 22nd January, 1974 (annexure P4), held the petitioner to be a dealer under the Act and also determined the date of liability as 12th April, 1961. The petitioner raised objections against the Order (P4), which were dismissed by the Assessing Authority vide order dated 22nd February, 1974 (annexure P6 ). The petitioner has assailed the notices (P2 and P3) as also the order of the Assessing Authority dated 22nd February, 1974 (P6), in the present writ.

(2.) MR. A. N. Sud, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Faridabad, in his affidavit, placed on the file, has averred that the petitioner after filing the present writ, filed an appeal against the order of the Assessing Authority dated 22nd February, 1974 (wrongly dated 22nd January, 1974) and the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeal) vide order dated 1st July, 1974, set aside the same on the ground that Mr. M. L. Kapoor, who had made the assessment, had not been duly vested with the powers of the Assessing Authority and thus was not competent to pass the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated in his arguments that the order of the Assessing Authority dated 22nd February, 1974 (P6), has since been set aside by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeal) and as such this writ stands rendered infructuous qua the same.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Assessing Authority could issue notices under Section 11 (6) of the Act after coming into possession of some information which satisfied him that any dealer had been liable to pay tax under the Act, in respect of any period, but had failed to apply for registration. The argument proceeds that in the instant case the Assessing Authority did not come into possession of any such information before issuing notices P2 and P3 to the petitioner, with the result that they are liable to be quashed.