An amendment to a taxing statute extending the time limit for assessment does not have retrospective effect and does not apply to assessments that had become barred by time before the amendment came into force.

R.S.Narula, J.

1. Messrs Faridabad Industrial and Quarrying Company, the petitioner in this case, is a registered dealer within the meaning of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act). The petitioner-company admittedly entered into transactions of purchase and sale of commodities in which they carried on business. It is not disputed that for none of the four quarters of the financial year 1959-60 (i.e., for the period 1st April, 1959 to 31st March, 1960), the petitionercompany filed any quarterly returns of its turnover under the principal Act. On 22nd March, 1963, the Excise and Taxation Officer, Gurgaon, respondent No. 1, who is the appropriate Assessing Authority, passed an order relating to the year in question, copy of which has been filed as annexure "C" to the writ petition. In this order the Assessing Authority stated, inter alia, as follows :-

(i) the perusal of the file reveals....

(ii) the case has again come before me today for assessment after substituted service of the memo notice has been effected by the Taxation SubInspector himself by affixing the copy of the same to his business premises.

(iii)...but it is established that the dealer did work his stone crushing machine during this period and transacted business and also on basis of local enquiries and to best of judgment, 1 determine his gross turnover at....

(iv) His chargeable purchases of stone, lubricants and electricity are determined to best of judgment, on the basis of local enquiries at....

2. When this writ petition was filed on 5th December, 1963, a prayer had been made in it to quash the assessment order annexure "C" relating to the financial year 1959-60 as well as the assessment orders, copies of which are annexures "A" and "B" to the writ petition, which related to two previous years. At the time of the motion hearing of the petition on 6th December, 1963, the petitioner proposed to confine the relief claimed by him in this casev to the assessment order dated 22nd March, 1963, for the year 1959-60 copy of which is annexure "C" to the writ petition.

3. The only ground on which the impugned assessment order dated 22nd March, 1963, is sought to be quashed and set aside is that the same is beyond the statutory jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 as he could not pass an order of assessment on the basis of best judgment under Section 11(5) of the principal Act after the expiry of a period of three years from the last day of the relevant quarter of the year in question. The argument is that if the petitioner is made to pay the sales tax and the penalty levied by the Assessing Authority in respect of the period for which the la did not allo him to assess the petitioner, it would amount to violation of the fundamental right of property guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 31 of the Constitution as he would be deprived of the amount in question save by authority of law. Section 11(5) of the principal Act reads as follows :-

If a registered dealer does not furnish returns in respect of any period by the prescribed date, the Assessing Authority shall within three years after the expiry of such period, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment, the amount of tax, if any, due from the dealer.

4. It is not disputed that the petitioner did not furnish any of the returns in respect of the three quarters of the year 1959-60 in respect of which the order of the Assessing Authority is being impugned in the instant case. Nor is it disputed that the respondent No. 1 proceeded to assess the petitioner in respect of the said quarters to the best of his judgment. Under Rule 20 of the rules framed under the Act the return in respect of each respective quarter could be filed within thirty days after the expiry of the relevant quarter. But it has been authoritatively held by the Supreme Court of India in Madan Lal Arora V/s. Excise and Taxation Offi