SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., A.K. SIKRI, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
State of Punjab & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
M/s. Shreyans Indus Ltd. Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2506-2511, 2512, 2513-2514, 2515, 2516-2517, 2518-2519, 2520 & 2521 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 21712-21717, 31488, 35619-35620 of 2009, 1672, 13237-13238 of 2010, 5076-5077, 33095 of 2011 & 12305 of 2015)
Decided on : 04-03-2016
(b) Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 – Section 11(10) – Extension of time for assessment – Enlarges period of limitation – Once the period of limitation expires, the immunity against being subject to assessment sets in – Right to make assessment gets extinguished – Therefore, once assessment becomes time barred, there would be no question of extending the time for assessment. (Para 24)
(2006) 143 STC 10 – Cited with approval
(1998) 111 STC 199 – Referred
(2010) 8 SCC 546; (1994) 5 SCC 182; (1987) 4 SCC 93 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
Interpretation of sub-section (10) of Section 11 of Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 is involved in these appeals.
The assessee had filed quarterly returns in respect of the Assessment Years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. In terms of Section 11(3) of the Act, time-limit for completing the assessment provided therein is three years from the end of the year. Accordingly, assessments were to be made by 30th April, 2004 for the Assessment Year 2000-01, 30th April, 2005 for the Assessment Year 2001-02, 30th April, 2006 for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and 30th April, 2007 for the Assessment Year 2003-04.
No assessment was made in respect of any of these Assessment Years by the aforesaid stipulated dates.
The Assessing Officer sent notices to the respondent-assessee for the aforesaid Assessment Years, after the expiry of three years. The assessee took an objection that these notices were sent beyond the period of assessment and, therefore, it was not permissible for the Assessing Officer to issue notice after the expiry of three years and carry on with the assessment proceedings.
When the objection was taken by the assessee that the notices were time barred, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala passed orders granting extension of time.
This order of extension was challenged by the respondent along with the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal.
The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
There is no error in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Sikri, J.
Leave granted.
2. In these appeals, the judgment which is impugned is passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The issue involved in these appeals is identical which pertains to the interpretation that is to be accorded to sub-section (10) of Section 11 of Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). It is for this reason that all these appeals were heard together and can conveniently be disposed of by one common judgment. Since SLP (C) Nos. 21712-21717 of 2009 was taken as the lead case, for understanding the nature of lis that is involved, the factual narration can be addressed from the said appeal.
3. In these appeals, we are concerned with Assessment Years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. Obviously, assessment in respect of these Assessment Years was to be made under the said Act. The assessee had filed quarterly returns in respect of the aforesaid Assessment Years. In terms of Section 11(3) of the Act, time-limit for completing the assessment provided therein is three years from the end of the year. Accordingly, assessments were to be made by 30th April, 2004 for the Assessment Year 2000-01, 30th April, 2005 for the Assessment Year 2001-02, 30th April, 2006 for the Assessment Year 2002-03 and 30th April, 2007 for the Assessment Year 2003-04. It is an admitted case that no assessment was made in respect of any of these Assessment Years by the aforesaid stipulated dates.
4. The Assessing Officer, however, sent notices to the respondent-assessee in Form ST-XIV for the aforesaid Assessment Years, i.e., after the expiry of three years. The assessee took an objection that these notices were sent beyond the period of assessment and, therefore, it was not permissible for the Assessing Officer to issue notice after the expiry of three years and carry on with the assessment proceedings.
5. We may point out that under Section 11(10) of the Act, the Commissioner is empowered to extend the period of three years for passing the order of assessment for such further period as he may deem fit, after recording in writing the reasons for extending such period. When the objection was taken by the assessee that the notices were time barred, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala passed orders dated August 17, 2007 granting extension of time. Reason given for extension of time was that the case of the assessee for the year 1999-2000 was pending with the Tribunal. This order of extension was challenged by the respondent along with the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide its orders September 13, 2007 holding that since there was a power of extension conferred upon the Commissioner under Section 11(10) of the Act, the Commissioner was within his powers to extend the period. The contention of the assessee was that though there was a power of extension, such a power could be exercised only within the limitation prescribed. In other words, it was contended that when the normal period of limitation for passing assessment order by the Assessing Officer was three years, as per Section 11(3) of the Act, the power to extend the period could be exercised within the said period of three years and not after the expiry of limitation period. This plea of the assessee was rejected by the Tribunal.
6. The assessee took up the matter further by filing appeals before the High Court. Here, the assessee has succeeded in its submission as the High Court of Punjab and Haryana vide impugned judgment dated September 26, 2008 has held that once the period of limitation expires, the immunity from subjecting itself to the assessment sets in and the right to make assessment gets extinguished. Therefore, when the period of limitation prescribed in the Act for passing the assessment order expires, thereafter, the Commissioner is debarred from exercising his powers under sub-section (10) of Section 11 of the Act and cannot extend
Javer Jivan Mehta v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.