Best judgment assessment must start within limitation; a later amendment cannot revive a time-barred tax assessment.

A best judgment assessment under section 11(5) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 required a definite step within the statutory period showing that the assessment process had actually begun; a mere notice or later assessment order was insufficient, so the Revenue failed to establish timely commencement. As the three-year limitation had expired before the assessment order, the assessment for the first three quarters of 1959-60 was time-barred and without jurisdiction. An amendment substituting four years for three operated prospectively only and could not revive assessments already barred before it came into force.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Assessing Authority had taken any definite step within the prescribed period so as to be deemed to have proceeded to assess the dealer to the best of his judgment under section 11(5) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948; (ii) whether the best judgment assessment made on 22 March 1963 was barred by limitation in respect of the first three quarters of the financial year 1959-60; (iii) whether the amendment substituting four years for three years in section 11(5) operated retrospectively so as to validate the assessment.

Issue (i): whether the Assessing Authority had taken any definite step within the prescribed period so as to be deemed to have proceeded to assess the dealer to the best of his judgment under section 11(5) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: The statutory requirement was not satisfied by a mere notice or by the later order of assessment. The authority had to show some definite act or step, within the three-year period, from which it could clearly be ascertained that the process of best judgment assessment had in fact commenced. On the record, the respondent failed to establish any such step before the impugned order was passed.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the best judgment assessment made on 22 March 1963 was barred by limitation in respect of the first three quarters of the financial year 1959-60.

Analysis: The relevant period of three years had expired before the assessment order was made. The assessment could not be upheld unless the authority had already proceeded within time to assess on best judgment basis. As no such timely commencement was proved, the assessment for the first three quarters stood outside jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The assessment was time-barred and without jurisdiction, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the amendment substituting four years for three years in section 11(5) operated retrospectively so as to validate the assessment.

Analysis: The amendment was held to be prospective only. It did not revive matters that had already become time-barred before the amendment came into force, because there was no clear indication of retrospective operation or of any intention to resuscitate dead cases.

Conclusion: The amendment did not extend the limitation retrospectively, and this contention failed against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment order, so far as it related to the first three quarters of the financial year 1959-60, could not stand and the writ relief was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A best judgment assessment under section 11(5) must be shown by a definite step taken within the statutory period, and a subsequent prospective amendment extending limitation cannot revive assessments already barred by time.

---