SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(SC) 167

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
7th April, 1961
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Madan Lal Arora, Petitioner
Versus
Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, Respondent.
Writ Petn. No. 120 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Bhagirath Das and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates, for Petitioner; Mr. N. S. Bindra, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. D. Gupta, Advocate, with him), for Respondent

Advocates:
B.P.MAHESHVARI, Bhagirath Das, D.GUTPA, N.S.BINDRA

The three years within which the assessing authority can make a best judgment assessment under S. 11(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act should be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which returns had been filed.

Headnote:

PUNJAB GENERAL SALES TAX ACT - BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT - S. 11 - Computation of three years for making best judgment assessment - Period referred to in S. 11(4) is the period in respect of which returns had been furnished by the dealer - Three years to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which returns had been filed.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, filed returns of his sale turnovers for the four quarters of the financial years ending on March 31, 1955, and March 31, 1956. The Sales Tax Assessing Officer served three successive notices on him requiring him to attend with the documents and other evidence in support of his returns. The petitioner did not comply with any of the notices, and the assessing officer issued a final notice stating that on failure to produce the documents and other evidence mentioned, the case would be decided "on best judgment assessment basis."

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the assessing authority had no right to proceed to make any best judgment assessment as the three years within which only such assessment could be made had expired before then.

Issues: Whether the assessing authority had the right to make a best judgment assessment after the expiry of three years from the date of the returns.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted S. 11(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, which provides that the assessing authority may proceed to make an assessment to the best of his judgment within three years after the expiry of the period in respect of which returns had been furnished by the dealer. The court held that the three years should be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which returns had been filed.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and issued a writ restraining the respondent from making any best judgment assessment on the petitioner for sales tax for any quarter of the financial years 1955 and 1956.

Judgment

SARKAR, J. : The petitioner is a dealer registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. He filed returns of his sale turnovers for the four quarters of the financial year ending on March 31, 1955, and likewise, for the four quarters of the financial year ending on March 31, 1956. In respect of each year the Sales Tax Assessing Officer served three successive notices on him on March, 7, 1958, April 4, 1958, and August 18, 1959, requiring him to attend with the documents and other evidence in support of his returns. In the last of the notices mentioned above it was stated that on failure to produce the documents and other evidence mentioned, the case would be decided "on best judgment assessment basis." The petitioner did not comply with any of the notices, but after the receipt of the last notice he presented this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the right of the authorities to make a best judgment assessment.

2. The question raised by the petitioner turns on S. 11 of the Punjab General Sales tax Act, relevant provisions of which are set out below.

S. 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of registered dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.

(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of a registered dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.

... .... ... .... ..... .......

... .... ... .... ..... .......

(4) If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount, of the tax due from the dealer.

The contention of the petitioner is that at the date of the notice last mentioned the Sales Tax authorities had no right to proceed to make any best judgment assessment as the three years within which only such assessment could be made had expired before then. It seems to us that the contention of the petitioner is well founded. The learned counsel for the respondent, the assessing authority, also frankly conceded that he found it difficult to contend to the contrary.

3. Sub-section (4) of S. 11 deals with the case of a dealer who has furnished returns in respect of a period and has thereafter been asked to produce evidence to support the returns but has failed to do so. The sub-section provides that in such a case the assessing authority may proceed to make an assessment which to the best of his judgment should be made irrespective of the returns. The reason for this provision is that the correctness of the returns having been doubted by the assessing authority, the dealer has not availed himself of the opportunity afforded to him to remove these doubts. The sub-section, however, provides that the power can be exercised within the three years mentioned in it. Quite plainly, the power cannot be exercised after these three years have gone by.

4. The question is, how to compute the three years? The sub-section says "within three years after the expiry of such period." So the three years have to be counted from the expiry of the period mentioned. What then is that period" The words are "such period"., The period referred, therefore, is the period mentioned earlier in the sub-section, and that is the period in respect of which returns had been furnished by the dealer. This is also made clear by sub-se




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top