The publication of the cancellation of a registration certificate in the official Gazette is a mandatory requirement for imposing penal consequences on selling dealers for sales made to ungenuine dealers.

M.R.Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner is a partnership firm (hereinafter called the petitioner-firm) registered as a dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It filed the necessary returns for the year 1967-68. On the basis of these returns, the Assessing Authority framed the assessment. It is stated that the sales tax payable by the petitioner-firm had already been deposited along with the returns. The Assessing Authority filed the case on 27th October, 1969. There after, the Assessing Authority served another notice upon the petitioner firm in form S.T. XIX in which it was mentioned that the sales amounting to Rs. 1,32,038.76 made to different registered dealers were wrongly allowed because those dealers were not genuine dealers in terms of the definition of the word "dealer" as given in Section 2(d) of the Act. The petitioner-firm was called upon to show cause why the exemption granted to it under Section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act in respect of the sales made to the alleged ungenuine dealers be not withdrawn. In response to this notice, a representative of the petitioner-firm appeared before the Assessing Authority and submitted that the sales had, in fact, been made to the genuine dealers and that the order of reassessment could not be made on the ground mentioned in the notice. The representative of the petitioner-firm also submitted a written representation dated 13th September, 1971, copyannexure B to the petition, in which it was prayed that the District Excise and Taxation Officer be directed to produce the record relating to the alleged ungenuine dealers. The Assessing Authority disregarded this prayer on the ground that letter No. 7121/SRC dated 8th October, 1971, addressed by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, to the Assessing Authority was clear and that an attested copy of the same having been made a part of the file of assessment, it was not necessary to summon the Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar. Consequently, vide its order dated 2nd December, 1971, the order of reassessment was framed against the petitioner-firm and an additional liability of Rs. 10,523.50 was created against it.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-firm has addressed only two arguments in this petition. Firstly, because the entire material, including the returns, had already been placed on the record, so the Assessing Authority could not be deemed to have come into possession of any new information and the order of reassessment could not be framed under Section 11-A of the Act as it stood on the material time. Secondly, it was urged that when the registration certificate of a dealer is cancelled, the particulars regarding the cancellation order have to be mentioned in the official Gazette as soon as possible as laid down under Rule 12(2) of the Rules framed under the Act. The publication of this cancellation, being a mandatory requirement of law, could not entail penal consequences upon the selling dealers unless the same had been complied with.

3. About the first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner firm, I may add that the assessments are usually framed by the Assessing Authorities in a hurried manner. At that stage the gross turnover of a dealer and the certificates given by the purchasing dealer in form S.T. XXII are usually examined and the assessments are framed. The Assessing Authorities are not called upon to view every certificate with suspicion for, otherwise lot of public time would be wasted and even the assessees would be made to suffer greats inconvenience. If at some subsequent stage it comes to the notice of the Assessing Authority that the C forms had either not been furnished by a registered dealer or the same had been furnished by a dealer whose registration certificate stood cancelled in accordance with law at a time earlier than the one when he signed the declaration form, it could not be said that the receipt of this information would not