BUDH RAM NARAIN DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following three questions of law have been referred by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, under Section 22 (1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (Punjab Act 46 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as amended up-to-date : (

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the aforesaid questions of law are that the petitioners' concern filed returns for all the four quarters of the assessment year 1952-53 before the Assessing Authority, Gurgaon. The Assessing Authority assessed the petitioners' concern to a sales tax of Rs. 144-7-0 on a taxable turnover of Rs. 4,622-10-3. It was held that the account books of the petitioners' concern had been maintained in the normal course of business and were reliable. When the assessment was made, one of the partners, Shri Manohar Lal, was present.

(3.) WHILE hearing the petitioners' revision petition for the assessment year 1951-52, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, noticed that the Assessing Authority, while passing the order for the assessment year 1952-53, had not taken into consideration the fact that cash memos for the sales of commodities for Rs. 142-14-0 and Rs. 236-0-6 issued on 6th September, 1952, and 8th September, 1952, respectively, had not been entered in the account books of the petitioners' firm for the year 1952-53. Accordingly, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner issued a notice to the petitioners and suo motu took action under Section 21 (1) of the Act. He set aside the order of the Assessing Authority for the assessment year 1952-53 and remanded the case back to it for a fresh assessment. A petition for revision against the remand order to the Financial Commissioner failed. In pursuance of the remand order, the Assessing Authority took up the case for a fresh assessment in the presence of Shri Manohar Lal, one of the partners and his counsel, and then passed the order of assessment which order has been upheld by the Additional Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. It is in this situation that the petitioners' firm made an application under Section 22 (1) of the Act and the aforesaid three questions of law have been referred for our decision by the learned Financial Commissioner.