AGGARWAL IRON STORE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the dealer -Assessee, this Court, vide order dated April 15, 1996, directed the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab (for brevity, "the Tribunal"), to refer the following questions of law for determination by this Court, which have emerged from the order dated January 21, 1994, passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 505 of 1989 -90 in respect of assessment years 1980 -81:

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the dealer -Assessee is a registered dealer under the Punjab and Central sales tax laws and engaged in the business of iron and steel. For the assessment year 1980 -81, the dealer -Assessee filed four quarterly returns with gross turnover of Rs. 1,05,65,751.20. Not satisfied with the returns, the Assessing Authority issued a notice dated March 10, 1983, in form STXIV under Section 11(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, "the Act"). After initiating assessment proceedings, the Assessing Authority raised an additional demand of Rs. 7,26,753 including penalty of Rs. 70,000 under Section 10(7) and penalty of Rs. 100 under Section 23 of the Act, vide its order dated March 17, 1987 (annexure A).

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the dealer -Assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while setting aside penalties imposed under Sections 10(7) and 23 of the Act, directed the dealer -Assessee to appear before the Assessing Authority on March 25, 1994 for producing record for consideration of form ST -XXII as directed by the first appellate authority, vide order dated January 21, 1994 (annexure D). Thereafter, the dealer -Assessee filed an application under Section 22 of the Act for referring questions of law for opinion of this Court (annexure E). The Tribunal declined the application vide order dated April 3, 1995, against which the dealer -Assessee approached this Court for directing the Tribunal to draw up the statement of the case and refer the questions of law arising out of the order dated January 21, 1994. The Tribunal in compliance with the direction issued by this Court vide order dated April 15, 1996, has referred the aforementioned question of law for opinion of this Court. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from the following extracted position, which reads thus: