P. V. REDDI, C.J. - The appellant is the electronic division of BHEL, a Government of India undertaking engaged, inter alia, in designing, manufacturing, supplying and installation of power plant equipment. It has challenged the deferment orders dated December 3, 1998 passed by the third respondent herein in purported exercise of power under section 12(6)(b) of the Act read with section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in relation to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1984-85. The appellant/writ-petitioner also sought for a writ of prohibition restraining the second respondent from proceeding further to finalise the assessments for the aforementioned years under the Central Sales Tax Act.

Under section 12(6)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, the time during which the assessment has been deferred in any case or class of cases by the Joint Commissioner for reasons to be recorded in writing shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation for assessment. The core question is whether the impugned deferment order is valid in law and can be availed of by the assessing authority to gain time for making assessment. It is not in dispute that but for the deferment order, the assessment gets time-barred. It may be mentioned that the period of limitation for making the assessment is four years from the date of expiry of the relevant year. The learned single Judge observed that the time spent during the period of operation of stay order in Writ Petition Nos. 4734 and 4735 of 1988 can be excluded and the order of deferment passed by the Joint Commissioner cannot be assailed. It is common ground that irrespective of operation of the stay order, the time for making assessment is not available, when once the deferment order is found to be invalid.

The learned single Judge referred to the view taken by him in Writ Petition No. 36529 of 1997 regarding the applicability of the order of the stay granted in an earlier writ petition and directed that till the writ appeal against the said judgment is disposed of, the assessment shall not be framed. With these observations, the writ petitions were disposed of. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeals are filed. It may be mentioned that Writ Petition No. 36529 of 1997 is the subject-matter of Writ Appeal No. 4442 of 1998 and it is being disposed of today.

We must now advert to the relevant facts and march of events culminating in the passing of impugned deferment order dated December 3, 1998.

The appellant-company filed annual returns relating to the assessment years 1980-81 to 1984-85 in the month of April of the relevant year. Long thereafter, there was an inspection by the CTO (Intel.) and certain records were seized, notices were issued on March 2, 1988 under section 29 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act to show cause why prosecution shall not be launched. An option was given to compound the offences under section 31. The concerned authority was of the view that inter-State sales attracting Central sales tax have been shown as inter-unit/branch transfers, thereby avoiding the sales tax payable under the Central Sales Tax Act. Incorrect maintenance of accounts and records was alleged in the said notices. The appellant-company then filed Writ Petition No. 4734 of 1988 in this Court questioning that notice. This Court by an order dated March 30, 1988 stayed further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated March 2, 1988. That writ petition was eventually dismissed as infructuous on February 9, 1998 for the reason that the provisional assessment orders made were challenged in the Supreme Court and stay was granted therein. The provisional assessment orders were passed under section 28(6) of the Act on March 8, 1993. The Supreme Court granted interim stay staying the demand notices pursuant to the provisional assessment. By an order dated August 23, 1996, the interim stay was continued. Thereafter, pre-assessment notices or notices calling for books of accounts were issued pr