JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J.

(1) THESE are applications under Article 32 of the Constitution and challenge in these proceedings is to the validity of notice issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, respondent 2, under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Haryana Act). Such notice is said to have been issued on 18/12/1980. The relevant periods are 1968-69 to 1974-75 and each of the writ petitions relates to one of these years. As common questions of fact and law arise in these petitions and a common set of arguments has been advanced at the Bar, we proceed to dispose of all these Writ Petition by a common judgment.

(2) PETITIONER 1, a Public Limited Company, has its factory at Ganaur within the District of Sonepat in Haryana State and petitioner 2 is its General Manager (Leeal) and duly constituted attorney. Petitioner 1 a manufacturer of electric resistance, welded steel tubes and pipes, is a dealer registered under the Haryana Act as also under the central Sales Tax Act. It filed returns for all the quarters covered within the period indicated above as prescribed by the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act) till 31/03/1973 and under the Haryana Act for the quarters of the remaining years in question as the Haryana Act came into force with effect from 5/05/1973. On the receipt of notice relating to assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70. 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 in the prescribed form ST-XIV under S. 14(2 S. 11(2] of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and in the prescribed form ST-25 under S. 28(3 of the Act relating to year 1974-75, the petitioner-company appeared before respondent 2 and complied with the requirements of such notice by production of documents, books and other papers. While the matter was thus proceeding, the second respondent again issued a notice on 24/09/1982 requiring the petitioner-company to produce certain further records and documents. The petitioner has challenged that notice as also the vires of S. 28-A of the Haryana Act.

(3) S. 11 of the Punjab Act lays down the procedure of assessment which broadly corresponds to S. 28 of the Haryana Act. Though a major part of the period involved in these proceedings would be covered by the Punjab Act, it would be sufficient to refer for convenience to the corresponding provisions of the Haryana Act. S. 25 of the Haryana Act obliges every registered dealer to furnish its return in the manner prescribed and the relevant rules require returns to be submitted on quarterly basis. Ss. (1 of S. 28 entitles the assessing authority to accept the returns and assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns when he is satisfied without requiring the presence of the dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished are correct and complete. Ss. (2 requires the assessing authority, where he is not satisfied without requiring the presence of the dealer or production of evidence in support of the return to serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him to attend in person or to produce or cause to be produced such evidence as he may rely upon in support of the return. Under Ss. (3, where the dealer responds to the notice under Ss. (2, the assessing authority after hearing such evidence as the dealer may produce and such other evidence as the assessing authority may require on specified points, has to assess the tax. Ss. (4 authorises the assessing authority in the event of default of compliance with the terms of notice issued under Ss. (2 to proceed to assess, to the best of his judgment, the amount of tax due from the dealer. Ss. (5 deals with the situation where returns are not furnished and provides a period of five years after the expiry of such period to which the returns, if filed, would be related as the outer limit for completing the assessment to the best of the assessing