OM PARKASH SETH Vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Assessing Authority dated the 4th November, 1963, passed in pursuance of an order of the Assistant Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, remanding the case to him with regard to the year of assessment 1958-59.

(2.) THE petitioner is one Om Parkash Seth, sole proprietor of Kohinoor Woollen and Silk Mills, Kot Atma Singh, Ram Bagh Gate, Amritsar. He is engaged in the manufacture of textiles. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act-hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner under the Act is required to furnish quarterly returns. The petitioner filed the return for the first quarter, as stated in the petition, for that year. At the stage of arguments, Mr. Bhagirath Dass, learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated that the returns for the first two quarters of that year had been filed. No returns were filed for the subsequent quarters. In this situation, the Assessing Authority proceeded to assess the petitioner to tax on the basis of the best judgment assessment. The tax assessed was paid. The matter was, however, suo motu, taken up by the Commissioner in exercise of his powers of revision under Section 21 of the Act. The Assistant Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, on behalf of the Commissioner, passed the following order :i have heard both the parties and have also perused the impugned assessment order dated 16th February, 1960. The order passed by the Assessing Authority in this case is improper and is set aside. The Assessing Authority should have scrutinized necessary declaration forms before giving deductions under Rule 26 on account of sale to registered dealers. Since the case was being decided on best judgment basis, deductions on account of sale to registered dealers should not have been allowed. Moreover, suo motu powers are not confined by any time limit. The case is, therefore, sent down to the Assessing Authority, Amritsar, for a fresh assessment according to law.

(3.) IT may also be mentioned, at this stage, that at the time when the best judgment assessment was made on the 16th February, 1960, another best judgment assessment for the same year was made by the same Assessing Authority on the 16th December, 1960. The notice issued by the Commissioner under Section 21 of the Act was with regard to both the assessment orders, but while passing the revisional order he merely quashed the order of February, 1960. No reference was made to the order of the 16th December, 1960. The revisional order was passed on the 15th March, 1963, and in pursuance of that order, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Assessing Authority on the 6th May, 1963, for fresh assessment. Admittedly, this notice is beyond the four years of the end of the accounting year. On this matter, there is no dispute between the parties. In pursuance of this notice dated the 6th May, 1963, the Assessing Authority assessed the petitioner on the 4th November, 1963, and demanded purchase tax to the extent of Rs. 3,280- It is against this order that the present petition has been preferred.