PRESTOLITE OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing of an order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana, Chandigarh. The case relates to the assessment for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73. The assessments were, made both under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (briefly "the Punjab Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (briefly "the Central Act" ). The Assessing Authority accepted the returns relating to the assessment year 1971-72. In respect of the assessment year 1972-73, the returns submitted by the petitioner, M/s. Prestoliteof India Limited, Faridabad ("the Company" shortly) for two quarters were available with the Assessing Authority and they had been accepted. For the second two quarters, it was contended by the Company that it had submitted its returns, but since those were not found on the record of the department, the Assessing Authority accepted the records furnished by it by way of trading account and determined the turnover in relation to the sale. Therefore, ultimately this is a case where the returns of the Company had been accepted by the Assessing Authority. The Assessing Authority issued a notice to the Company for hearing in the assessment proceedings as the assessee claimed concessional rate. The Company appeared before the authority through its counsel and made representation that by that time, due to fire accident, its records were destroyed and it could not produce the original C and D forms on the basis of which, it claimed a concessional rate of tax. Although the Company did not dispute the turnover determined by the Assessing Authority for the purpose of local tax and Central tax, they contended before the Assessing Authority that the Company was entitled to a concessional rate of tax. Since the Assessing Authority had no jurisdiction to give concessional rate of tax without production of C and D forms, it gave time to the Company to produce evidence or the duplicate of C and D forms. The Assessing Authority gave 3/4 opportunities to the Company for the said purpose, but it did not produce the duplicate records. Since limitation for the assessment years was fast expiring, the Assessing Authority completed the assessment for both the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, under two different orders, under the Punjab Act and the Central Act, dated 12th December, 1978. The Company preferred 4 appeals, 2 in respect of the State tax and 2 in respect of the Central tax before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Rohtak (to be referred to as "the Commissioner" ). Even before the Commissioner, the Company did not produce the C and D forms. It had been contending that the records were destroyed by fire and, therefore, they could not produce the C and D forms and that the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Authority were invalid. It was also contended on behalf of the Company before the Commissioner that a period of 5 years only was available for assessment under the relevant provisions of the Punjab Act which was in force during the years 1971-72 and 1972-73, as also under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (to be called "the Haryana Act") which were now applicable for both the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 and that the assessments were barred by limitation. The Commissioner rejected both the contentions and held that the case under consideration before him was not one under the best judgment assessment and no question of period of limitation, as prescribed under the relevant provisions could arise. On the question, whether C and D forms could be produced, the Commissioner held that they had to be produced if the Company wanted to claim the concessional rate of tax. It may also be mentioned that the Company did not produce either the original or the duplicate of C and D forms before the Commissioner also. After the dismissal of both the appeals, the Company preferred further appeals to the Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana (hereinafter "the Tribunal" ). The Tribunal accepted the findings of both the Assessing Authority and the Commissioner and held that it was not a case of best judgment assessment and that the only controversy before it, therefore, was whether disallowing concessional rate of tax on the turnover determined, without production of declarations in C and D forms is justified. The Tribunal held that the Company was given sufficient opportunity to produce the said records, but it did not do so. Therefore, the Company is not entitled to the concessional rate of tax, both under the Punjab Act and the Central Act, as in force for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, as also under the subsequent enactment which is now applicable. There is a provision for making a reference to this Court if the question of law is raised, but the Company did not file any such application before the Tribunal for reference to the High Court. However, the Company filed an application before the Tribunal for reviewing its order. The provisions under which it purported to file the review application was Section 41 of the Haryana Act. It provides that if an assessee discovers any new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when such an order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, can file a review application. We have gone through the review application. We find that the Company has not relied on any new or important matter or evidence, which after exercise of due diligence, was not within its knowledge. In fact, the Tribunal pointed out that the Company raised the same contentions which it had raised at the time when the appeal was filed before the Commissioner or before him and ultimately he found that there were no grounds for allowing the review application and dismissed the same.

(2.) DISSATISFIED with the dismissal of the review application by the Tribunal, the Company again filed a second review application before the same Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the second application, holding that it was not based on any new material. In the view of the Tribunal, it was not the intention of the legislation that proceedings should be continued by filing further applications for reviewing the earlier orders without limit, as contemplated under Section 41 of the Haryana Act and dismissed the second review application also.

(3.) STILL aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the Company. However, it may be mentioned that this writ petition relates to the assessment year 1971-72 alone.