MILKHI RAM SADHU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE its order dated September 18, 1986, the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, has made the following reference to this Court under section 22 (1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 :

(2.) M /s. Milkhi Ram Sadhu Ram is a commission agent and is also engaged in the business of selling the goods. The assessee filed all quarterly returns in time, but did not pay tax on the purchase of chillies on the basis of a stay order passed by this Court. That stay order was vacated sometime in March, 1977. Even thereafter, the assessee did not pay the tax. Therefore, a notice in form ST-XIV was issued by the Assessing Authority on March 7, 1977 and the assessee was called upon to appear on March 24, 1977. This notice was served upon Shri Sadhu Ram on March 9, 1977. Thereafter, the case was fixed on October 13, 1977, November 2, 1977, December 22, 1977, February 1, 1978, May 15, 1979, September 14, 1979, November 3, 1979, December 28, 1979, March 12, 1980, June 11, 1980, July 10, 1980, July 17, 1980, July 24, 1980, October 18, 1980, January 9, 1981, January 16, 1981, September 30, 1981 and February 19, 1982. On all these dates, the assessee sought adjournments on the ground that it could not collect the required "f" forms and ST-XXII declaration form. Some of the adjournments were granted because the forms produced by the assessee were found to be defective and opportunity was given to him to get the forms corrected.

(3.) MR . R. C. Dogra, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, placed reliance on Rameshwar Lal Sarup Chand v. Shri U. S. Naurath, Excise and Taxation Officer [1964] 15 STC 932 (Punj) [fb] and Jagat Ram Om Parkash v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1965] 16 STC 107 (Punj) [fb] and argued that unless a notice for initiation of assessment proceedings is issued under section 11 (2) of the Act and it is followed by a separate notice under section 11 (4), within the time stipulated in that section, the proceedings must be held to be time-barred. Mr. Dogra submitted that notice dated March 7, 1977, issued by the Assessing Authority in form ST-XIV cannot be treated as a notice under section 11 (4) and, therefore, after the expiry of five years counted from the year of assessment, the Assessing Authority had no jurisdiction to pass the order of assessment. Mr. Dogra further submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing Authority did not indicate his intention to frame assessment under section 11 (4) and, therefore, all the proceedings held by the Assessing Authority were without jurisdiction and the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner as well as the Tribunal committed a serious illegality in upholding the assessment order. Mr. P. S. Chhinna, Senior Deputy Advocate-General, argued that the notice in form ST-XIV issued to the petitioner contained a clear indication that in case the assessee failed to comply with the requirement of the notice, the Assessing Authority would proceed to make assessment in the best of his judgment and, therefore, the proceedings should be deemed to have commenced on March 9, 1977, the date on which the notice was served upon Sadhu Ram. Section 11 (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the 1948 Act reads as under :