ASSESSING AUTHORITY AMRITSAR Vs. OM PARKASH SETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been placed before us for decision in pursuance of the order of S. B. Capoor and R. S. Narula, JJ. of september 26, 1968. When this appeal came up for hearing before the learned judges, it was considered that the legal question arising in this appeal was the same as was referred by Sarkaria, J. on April 1, 1968, in C. W. 1232 of 1965. That is how this appeal has come before us for decision.

(2.) IN fact, the point of law that arises for decision in this appeal is not the same as arose in C. W. 1232 of 1965 as observed by the learned Single Judge in his judgment as under:-" i am not determining question whether there is any period of limitation prescribed for the Commissioner within which he can exercise his powers under S. 21. " the question of Taw that was referred in C. W. 1232 of 1965 to a Full Bench was "whether the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 21 (1) of the Punjab general Sales Tax Act, 1948, is subject to the period of limitation prescribed in section 11-A of the Act". The question of law that arises in this appeal is whether the proceedings for fresh assessment taken by the assessing authority in pursuance of the directions made by the Commissioner while disposing of a revision petition under Section 21 (1) of the Act setting aside the order of assessment and ordering the assessing authority to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law are governed by the period of limitation prescribed in Subsections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 11 or Section 11-A of the Punjab General Sales tax Act, 1948, hereinafter called' the Act. The learned Judge has taken the view that the proceedings taken for fresh assessment by the assessing authority in pursuance of the order of remand made by the Commissioner in exercise of revisional powers is governed by the period of limitation provided in Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 11 or Section 11-A of the Act. This view of the learned judge is well founded and finds support from, a judgment of their Lordships of the supreme Court in Jaipuria Brothers Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1905) 16 STC 494 = (AIR 1965 SC 1213 ). Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of that Act provides:-

(3.) SECTION 21 of the U. P. Act provided as under;-