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

1967 Supreme(SC) 112

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. C. SHAH and V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
Versus
MURLIDHAR MAHABIR PARSHAD
Date of decision : 4/4/1967.
Civil Appeal No. 188 of 1966.
Advocates Appeared
R. Ganapathy Iyer, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayyar, for the appellants.
Hardev Singh and S. S. Khanduja, for the respondents.

Advocates:
HARDEV SINGH, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.N.SACH, S.P.NAIR, S.S.Khanduja

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAMASWAMI, J.-This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the Judgment of the Punjab High Court dated November 6, 1963, dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No. 319 of 1963, against the order of Harbans Singh, J., dated August 1, 1963, allowing the writ petition of the respondents being Civil Writ No. 725 of 1961 dated June 6, 1961.

The respondent-firm is a registered dealer under the Punjab Sales Tax Act and has been dealing in gur, shakkar and sugar.

On March 16, 1959, there was a notice issued in Form S.T. XIV in respect of the assessment to sales tax for the year 1957-58. The service of the notice was effected on January 2, 1960, and the respondent was required to appear before the Assessing Authority on January 11, 1960. The respondent did not appear on that date and the case was adjourned. Thereafter, the respondent was requested to appear before the Assessing Authority on March 18, 1961, but he failed to appear on that date also due to the illness of his son. Further adjournments were granted and ultimately the respondent was given a final opportunity for appearance on June 10, 1961, with account books for the years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 failing which the Assessing Authority would assess him on best judgment basis. Before the assessment proceedings could be completed, the respondent filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court on June 6, 1961, for grant of a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ directing the appellants not to proceed against the respondent under section 11 of the Punjab Sales Tax Act. In answer to the writ petition the appellants filed a counter-affidavit contesting the averments raised in the writ petition. The writ petition was, however, allowed by Harbans Singh, J., by his judgment dated August 1, 1963, and directions were issued to the appellants not to continue the proceedings for assessment of the respondent to sales tax for the year 1957-58. The learned Judge took the view that the point of law arising in this case was covered by the decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in Rameshwar Lal Sarup Chand v. U.S. Naurath{Civil Writ No. 798 of 1962 }, in which it was held that assessment of sales tax under sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 11 of the Punjab Sales Tax Act must be completed within a period of three years from the last day on which the return has to be filed and any assessment made after the lapse of the said period of three years shall be without jurisdiction. The appeal under the Letters Patent from the judgment of Harbans Singh, J., was summarily dismissed on November 6, 1963.

Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act originally stood in these terms :

"If no returns are furnished by a registered dealer in respect of any period by the prescribed date, or if the assessing authority is not satisfied that the returns furnished are correct and complete, the assessing authority shall, within twelve months after the expiry of such period, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, proceed in such manner as may be prescribed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of tax due from the dealer."

The section was amended by section 7 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1952 (No. 6 of 1952) and the phrase "proceed to assess" was substituted by the word "assess". In the year 1955, the section was again amended by section 3 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (No. 4 of 1955). The effect of the amendment was that in sub-sections (1) and (3), the word "assess" has been retained while in sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) it has been substituted by the phrase "proceed to assess". The relevant part of section 11 is to the following effect :

"11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of a registered dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he











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