(1.) IT would be unnecessary to detail out elaborate facts pertaining to this petition. These can well be noticed in my decision in C. W. P. No. 2901 of 1982 (Gopal Oil Mills v. Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ludhiana [1984] 57 STC 308) decided on 15th March, 1984, which pertains to the petitioner herein. Since the decision therein would in some respects govern the fate of the present case, skeletally only some facts need be noticed.
(2.) FOR the assessment year 1968-69, the petitioner filed sales tax return and paid tax thereon. However, the petitioner did not file any purchase tax return. During the course of proceedings for assessment, a few memorandums were sent to the petitioner in these words :
(3.) THEREAFTER on 14th September, 1976, an assessment was framed by the Assessing Authority vide order, annexure P-l, on a taxable turnover which included sales tax and purchase tax payable. The petitioner went up in appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner who set aside the order of assessment and remanded the case to the Assessing Authority to re-determine the tax liability of the petitioner as also the penalty, if any, to be imposed on it. That order is annexure P-3,. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Sales Tax Tribunal in the appeal but unsuccessfully. It even approached the Tribunal for referring questions of law to this Court said to arise from the order of the Tribunal but failed. The Assessing Authority, on the other hand, on remand framed an assessment against the petitioner and levied sales tax as also purchase tax, and also imposed penalty on the basis of the purchase tax assessed by it, as according to it, there was a failure to file the purchase tax return and deposit tax thereon. Though the petitioner has concededly gone in appeal against that order, it has all the same approached this Court to challenge the view of the Sales Tax Tribunal affirming that of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner the foundation of which was the order of the assessment.