The power of revision under Section 21 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 is not subject to the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11-A of the Act, and the tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 cannot be levied and collected in respect of inter-State sales in the State from which the movement of goods commenced.

Dulat, J.

1. These three appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent (Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 263, 264 and 265 of 1963 ). arise out of a single judgment of Shamsher Bahadur, J., by which he dismissed three writ petitions brought on behalf of the appellant under Art. 226 of the Conditional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner in respect of levy of sales-tax under the central Tax Act, 1956.

2. The appellant is a company with its registered office in Bombay ant, at the time, it has a branch office at Amritsar which is managed by Kishan Chand and Company. The company is engaged in the manufacture of rayon yarn in its factory at, Bombay and some of it is sent to Amritsar to its Branch office for distribution and sale. The company is a registered dealer both under the East Punjab General Sales Act. 1948, and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 . In respect of three consecutive years--1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60--the company filed its returns and the Assessing Authority made its decision on the 19th February 1959. For the next year, 1958-59, the decision was made on the 14th of July 1959 and for the following year, 1959-60, it was made on the 7th of October 1960. The appellant-company was satisfied with these decisions and as we understand, no tax under the Central Sales Tax Act was levied.

Later on, this omission was noticed by the Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, who, therefore, issued notices in respect of the three years and the notices, which were identical were issued on the 18th August, 1962. The Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner said that he had "decide not take us motto action under section 21(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. 1948", as he was not satisfied with the legality and propriety of the orders previously made by the Assessing Authority, the intention behind these notices obviously being to reopen the previous decision. The appellant-company objected to that and having found out that tax under a Central Sales Tax Act was proposed to be levied in respect of certain sales in the nature of inter-state trade, the appellant-company put in several objections. Those objections were not considered valid by the Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and that appellant, here-upon, filed three right petition in this court challenging jurisdiction of the Additional Asst. Excise and Taxation Commissioner in respect of the. In substance, the objection to his jurisdiction were two: (1) that the assessments were being reopened after a long period of time and as far as the first to years 1957-58 and 1958-59 were concerned there were being more than three years after the close of the assessment years and that was not possible in view of S. 11-A of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948; and

(2) that the goods sold in the course inter-State trade were sent in these cases from Mumbai to Punjab and the tax under Sales Tax Act could levied and collected only in the state of Maharashtra from which the movement of the goods commenced".

In answer to the first objection, it was said on the return filed on behalf of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab that the period of time mentioned in section 11-A of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act had no application at all because the Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation commissioner was not an Assessing Authority and was not seeking to act under S. 11-A but was merely intending to revise an order previously made by an Assessing Authority and the power of such revision lay with the Additional Assistant Excise and Taxation commissioner by virtue is S. 21 of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act. Regarding the second objection the return stated that the Supreme Court of India had in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd Bombay V/s. S. T. Sarkar, AIR 1961 SC 65 decided on 29-8-1960 that "when a sale is effected by transfer of documents of tittle to the goods during their movement from one State to another fa