MUNJAL SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS bunch of General Sales Tax References Nos. 13 to 18 of 1985 and C. W. P. Nos. 3218 and 3439 of 1985, which raise common questions of law and fact are proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) MUNJAL Synthetics Private Ltd. , Ludhiana, is in the business of manufacture and sale of leather board, etc. It is a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. The Assessing Authority, vide orders dated November 25, 1975 and January 24, 1977, framed assessments for the years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ludhiana, exercising the powers of Commissioner, initiated proceedings under Section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short "the Act"), for revising the orders of the Assessing Authority. He came to the conclusion that the assessee had sold goods on the strength of a certificate of registration and paid tax at the concessional rate of 1 per cent whereas these sales were liable to bear tax at the rate of 6 per cent. He allowed the revisions, vide orders dated February 18, 1982 and created additional demands for both these years. For the year 1975-76, the Assessing Authority rejected the accounts of the dealer and created additional demands under the Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, respectively. Dissatisfied, the dealer filed appeals which were dismissed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner.

(3.) FOR the year 1976-77, the same story was repeated. The Assessing Authority created an additional demand. The appeal filed by the dealer failed. For the year 1977-78 also, the Assessing Authority rejected the accounts of the dealer and created additional demand and imposed a penalty under Section 13 (3) of the Act. The appeals against those orders also failed. The dealer filed two revision petitions against the orders of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner. They also remained unsuccessful. The dealer then filed four appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The revision petitions as well as the appeals filed by the dealer were dismissed by the Tribunal.