1972 Supreme(P&H) 154

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
H.R.Sodhi and Rajendra Nath Mittal JJ.
Devi Dass Gopal Krishan
Versus
State Of Punjab
General Sales Tax Reference No. 3 of 1970,
Decided On : MAY 26, 1972

Incomplete and incorrect returns can be treated as returns for the purpose of assessment under Section 11(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Headnote:

PUNJAB GENERAL SALES TAX ACT, 1948 - RETURNS - INCOMPLETE AND INCORRECT RETURNS - ASSESSMENT - JURISDICTION - TRANSFER OF PROCEEDINGS - IRREGULAR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION - ESTOPPEL.

Fact of the Case:

The assessee, a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, filed quarterly returns for the assessment year 1960-61, showing "nil" against all columns. The Assessing Authority created an additional demand of Rs. 35,041.23 by his order dated 21st March, 1963. The assessee filed an appeal to the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, who remanded the case to the Assessing Authority to decide it afresh. The Assessing Authority made the assessment afresh and created an additional demand of Rs. 38,493.80 by his order dated 30th October, 1965. The assessee filed a revision petition before the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, which was transferred to the Sales Tax Tribunal for disposal. The Tribunal dismissed the revision petition on 30th July, 1968.

Finding of the Court:

1. The returns filed by the assessee were incomplete and incorrect returns, as the writing of the word "nil" showed that they had not been perfected by giving complete information. They could also be said to be incorrect as the information given in column 1 and the subsequent columns showed that no purchase had been made which was contrary to facts. 2. The assessee could not take any benefit from the case of Abhey Ram Chunni Lal, In re [1933] 1 I.T.R. 126, as the facts of that case were distinguishable from the present one. 3. The case of Khas Kajore Coal Co. Limited V/s. Member, Board of Revenue [1966] 18 S.T.C. 79, was also distinguishable from the present one, as the deposit of the amount is mandatory before the filing of the return. 4. Shri K.K. Uppal, who passed the original order, had the jurisdiction to make the assessment, as he was an Excise and Taxation Officer for the whole of the State of Punjab and authorised by the State Government to act as the Assessing Authority under Section 2(a) of the Act. 5. The Excise and Taxation Officer incharge of a district could transfer a case from the file of an Additional Excise and Taxation Officer or Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer serving in his district to his own file and vice versa or to the file of another Excise and Taxation Officer serving in his district, subject to the pecuniary jurisdiction prescribed. 6. The Commissioner had the power to superintend the administration and the collection of tax leviable under the Act and to control all officers empowered thereunder, which included the power to transfer proceedings from one Assessing Authority to another. 7. Shri K.K. Uppal could take cognizance of the matter without any specific order of transfer, as he had the jurisdiction to make the assessment and the mere fact that no specific order of transfer had been made, did not take away the jurisdiction of that authority. 8. The assessee could not raise the objection regarding the jurisdiction of Shri K.K. Uppal for the first time before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, as he had submitted to the jurisdiction of Shri K.K. Uppal and Shri Sarbjit Singh.

Issues: 1. Whether the quarterly returns filed by the petitioner without depositing the amount of tax and without indicating his gross taxable turnover were returns in the eye of law and could furnish a basis for proceedings under Section 11(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act? 2. Whether the order of the Assessing Authority dated 30th October, 1965, assessing purchase tax in the case without issuing a statutory notice under Section 11 (5) of the Act was within limitation and sustainable in law ? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Assessing Authority was within jurisdiction and legally sustainable ?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Incomplete and incorrect returns can be treated as returns for the purpose of assessment under Section 11(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. 2. The assessee cannot take any benefit from the case of Abhey Ram Chunni Lal, In re [1933] 1 I.T.R. 126, as the facts of that case were distinguishable from the present one. 3. The case of Khas Kajore Coal Co. Limited V/s. Member, Board of Revenue [1966] 18 S.T.C. 79, was also distinguishable from the present one, as the deposit of the amount is mandatory before the filing of the return. 4. Shri K.K. Uppal, who passed the original order, had the jurisdiction to make the assessment, as he was an Excise and Taxation Officer for the whole of the State of Punjab and authorised by the State Government to act as the Assessing Authority under Section 2(a) of the Act. 5. The Excise and Taxation Officer incharge of a district could transfer a case from the file of an Additional Excise and Taxation Officer or Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer serving in his district to his own file and vice versa or to the file of another Excise and Taxation Officer serving in his district, subject to the pecuniary jurisdiction prescribed. 6. The Commissioner had the power to superintend the administration and the collection of tax leviable under the Act and to control all officers empowered thereunder, which included the power to transfer proceedings from one Assessing Authority to another. 7. Shri K.K. Uppal could take cognizance of the matter without any specific order of transfer, as he had the jurisdiction to make the assessment and the mere fact that no specific order of transfer had been made, did not take away the jurisdiction of that authority. 8. The assessee could not raise the objection regarding the jurisdiction of Shri K.K. Uppal for the first time before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, as he had submitted to the jurisdiction of Shri K.K. Uppal and Shri Sarbjit Singh.

Final Decision: The answer to the first question is in favour of the department and against the assessee. The answer to the second question is also against the assessee and in favour of the department. The answer to the third question is also decided in favour of the department and we hold that the order of the Assessing Authority was within its jurisdiction and legally sustainable.