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

1962 Supreme(P&H) 124

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehar Singh and Shamsher Bahadur JJ.
Narain Singh Mohinder Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
General Sales Tax No. 11 of 1960,
Decided On : JULY 17, 1962

The Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 21(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, are not controlled by Section 11-A of the Act, which applies only to the Assessing Authority.

Headnote:

PUNJAB GENERAL SALES TAX ACT, 1948 - SECTIONS 2(A), 2(B), 11-A, 21(1) - REVISION POWERS OF COMMISSIONER - NOT BOUND BY SECTION 11-A - NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 21(1) NOT SUBJECT TO SECTION 11-A - NO LIMITATION FOR ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee-firm, Narain Singh Mohinder Singh, was assessed to sales tax for the period between 1st April, 1953, and 31st March, 1954. The Commissioner of Excise and Taxation, exercising his powers of revision under Section 21(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, increased the taxable turnover of the assessee-firm, resulting in an extra amount of sales tax payable. The assessee-firm challenged the Commissioner's order, contending that the Commissioner was bound by the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act, which prescribed a three-year limitation for reassessment by the Assessing Authority.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 21(1) of the Act were not controlled by Section 11-A, which applied only to the Assessing Authority. The court further held that the notice issued by the Commissioner under Section 21(1) was not subject to the limitation prescribed by Section 11-A, as it was not a notice for assessment or reassessment.

Issues: 1. Whether the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, while exercising powers under Section 21(1) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, is not bound by the provisions of Section 11A when proceeding to reassess the assessee-firm? 2. Whether the issue of notice on 28th March, 1957, taking suo motu action is sufficient to save limitation prescribed under Section 11-A of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948? 3. Whether the assessment should have been completed on 31st March, 1957, which is within three years of the end of the year (1st April, 1953 to 31st March, 1954), or only a notice issued within the period of three years would save the limitation?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 11-A of the Act applies only to the Assessing Authority and not to the Commissioner. 2. The Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 21(1) of the Act are not controlled by Section 11-A. 3. The notice issued by the Commissioner under Section 21(1) is not subject to the limitation prescribed by Section 11-A, as it is not a notice for assessment or reassessment.

Final Decision: The court answered the reference accordingly, holding that the Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 21(1) of the Act were not controlled by Section 11-A, and that the other two questions, rendered meaningless by this answer, did not arise.

Judgment

Mehar Singh, J.

1. There was a firm with the name of Manohar Singh Kartar Singh, which obtained a certificate of registration under Section 7 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (Punjab Act No. 46 of 1948), on 18th February, 1952. Narain Singh purporting to be the karta of this firm on 14th August, 1953, applied for cancellation of that certificate on the ground that that firm had stopped its business, but this application was rejected.

2. The Assessing Authority under the Act proceeded to assessment for the period from 1st April to 29th July, 1953, by an order of 18th August, 1953. On 18th November, 1953, Narain Singh as karta of firm Manohar Singh Kartar Singh made an application for the change of the name of that firm into Narain Singh Mohinder Singh. This application was allowed and the certificate of registration was amended to accord with the change in the name of the firm.

3. On 3rd July, 1954, firm Narain Singh Mohinder Singh was assessed to sales tax for the period between 1st April, 1953, and 31st March, 1954. This would seem to cover some months for which assessment had already been made in the order of 18th August, 1953. but that is not a matter of controversy in this reference.

4. On 28th March, 1957, the Commissioner of Excise and Taxation, of his own motion under Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act, exercising his powers of revision, issued notice to firm Narain Singh Mohinder Singh for revision of the assessment and proceedings connected with it as done by the Assessing Authority. Thereafter the Commissioner proceeded to consider the legality and propriety of the proceedings before the Assessing Authority in so far as the assessment to sales tax of this firm was concerned and finding that the taxable turnover had been assessed at a lesser figure than it should have been, increased the same with the result that the assessee-firm became liable to pay an extra amount as sales tax. It is not necessary to go into the figures. The order of the Commissioner is of 1st September, 1957, annexure C. Against this order the assessee-firm went in revision under Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Act to the Financial Commissioner but failed on 31st March, 1959. Thereafter it made an application to the Financial Commissioner for a reference to this Court under Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act but that application was declined by him on 24th March, 1960, on the ground that no question of law arose out of his order. It was thereafter that the assessee-firm obtained an order from this Court under Sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Act for reference of these three questions to this Court :-

(1) Whether the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, while exercising powers under Section 21(1) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 , is not bound by the provisions of Section 11A when proceeding to reassess the assessee-firm ;

(2) Whether the issue of notice on 28th March, 1957, taking suo motu action is sufficient to save limitation prescribed under Section 11-A of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 ; and

(3) Whether the assessment should have been completed on 31st March, 1957, which is within three years of the end of the year (1st April, 1953 to 31st March, 1954), or only a notice issued within the period of three years would save the limitation ?

5. The learned Financial Commissioner has accordingly made reference of these questions to this Court by his order of 27th June, 1961.

6. In Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act the "Assessing Authority" is defined to mean any person authorised by the State Government to make any assessment under the Act; and in Clause (b) of this section "Commissioner" means the Excise and Taxation Commissioner appointed under Sub-section (1) of Section 3, which provision gives power to the State Government to appoint such a Commissioner to carry out the purposes of the Act and also to appoint other persons to assist him as the State Government thinks fit. Sub-secti









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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