DEVI DASS GOPAL KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Nos. 1569 and 1570 of 1973, which involve common questions of law and facts. The facts in this judgment are being given from Civil Writ No. 1569 of 1973.

(2.) Briefly the case of the petitioner is that it is a partnership firm carrying on the business of crushing mustard oil seeds at Bahadurgarh. It was registered in the composite State of Punjab at Moga under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. After the re-organisation of the State of Punjab on November 1, 1966, the Bahadurgarh firm got itself registered on June 20, 1967, in the State of Haryana. The Assessing Authority, respondent No. 2 started assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1967-68, against the petitioner firm and framed assessment vide order dated March 26, 1973 by which a liability of Rs. 2090.87 was created on it. The petitioner has challenged the order inter alia on the ground that the petitioner purchased the goods through the Commission Agents under an agreement by which the Commission Agents became the purchasers and consequently they were liable to pay purchase tax. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Assessing Authority, without recording any evidence, has held that the petitioner was liable to pay tax on the goods which were purchased by it through the Commission Agents. He argues that the liability could be fixed on the petitioner only after taking into consideration the terms of the agreement between the petitioner and its Agents. In support of his contention, he had placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd. v. The State of Punjab and another, 1967 20 STC 290and that of this Court in The State of Punjab and another v. Messrs The Punjab Copra Crushing Oil Mills, Jullundur, L.P.A. No. 487 of 1971, decided on November 7, 1974.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Assessing Authority, while deciding the matter did not base his order on any evidence. Before deciding the question as to whether the petitioner or its Agent was liable to pay tax, it should have recorded evidence and determined as to what were the terms of the contract between the parties. It has only decided the matter treating it to be a concrete proposition of law. In my view, the decision of the learned Assessing Authority is erroneous and liable to be quashed. I get full support in the aforesaid view from Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd. case .