Incomplete returns can still count in law, supporting assessment and defeating notice-based limitation objections.

Quarterly returns filed in the prescribed form, even with nil figures and explanatory notes, are treated as returns in law and may support assessment proceedings under section 11(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. Where such returns are treated as filed returns, the notice mechanism for non-filing under section 11(5) and its time limit do not apply, so a limitation objection based on that provision fails. The text also states that assessment remains valid where the Assessing Authority otherwise has jurisdiction, and the absence of a formal transfer order does not void the proceedings if the defect is only irregular and the dealer has acquiesced.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether quarterly returns filed in the prescribed form, though showing nil figures and accompanied by explanatory notes, were returns in the eye of law and could support proceedings under section 11(2); (ii) whether assessment could be sustained when the notice under section 11(5) was not issued and whether the assessment was time-barred; (iii) whether the Assessing Authority had jurisdiction to initiate and complete assessment proceedings despite the absence of a formal transfer order.

Issue (i): whether quarterly returns filed in the prescribed form, though showing nil figures and accompanied by explanatory notes, were returns in the eye of law and could support proceedings under section 11(2).

Analysis: The returns were filed by a registered dealer on the prescribed form and were accompanied by notes explaining why nil figures were shown. The Court treated the scheme of sections 10 and 11 as distinguishing between no return, incomplete or incorrect return, and a return satisfying the requirements for assessment on the basis of the return. The presence of the form, the declaration, and the explanatory notes showed that the dealer had filed something intended as a return, though the particulars were not complete and were inconsistent with the true turnover. Such a return could not be equated with no return.

Conclusion: The returns were good returns in the eye of law and could furnish a basis for proceedings under section 11(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether assessment could be sustained when the notice under section 11(5) was not issued and whether the assessment was time-barred.

Analysis: Section 11(5) applies where no return is furnished by the prescribed date, while incomplete or incorrect returns fall within the notice-and-hearing procedure under section 11(2) and section 11(3). Since the filed returns were treated as returns, the case did not fall under section 11(5). The time-limit for best judgment assessment under that sub-section was therefore not attracted. The assessment was sustained on the footing of proceedings under section 11(2), not as a best judgment assessment for non-filing.

Conclusion: The assessment was not required to be preceded by a notice under section 11(5), and the plea of limitation under that provision failed against the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the Assessing Authority had jurisdiction to initiate and complete assessment proceedings despite the absence of a formal transfer order.

Analysis: The Court held that the officer who initiated the proceedings was an Assessing Authority authorised under the Act and the Rules to make assessment throughout the State. The jurisdictional objection was not raised at the earliest stage and the assessee had submitted to the authority's jurisdiction. The Court distinguished cases of total want of jurisdiction from cases of irregular assumption of jurisdiction, and held that the absence of a formal transfer order, even if irregular, did not render the proceedings void. The power of superintendence and the scheme of the Rules also supported the conclusion that transfer was not indispensable to validity where the authority otherwise possessed jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Assessing Authority had jurisdiction, and the assessment order was legally sustainable despite the absence of a formal transfer order.

Final Conclusion: All three referred questions were answered against the assessee and in favour of the department, and the assessment proceedings were upheld in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A return filed in the prescribed form with incomplete or incorrect particulars is still a return for the purposes of assessment under section 11(2), and an authority that otherwise possesses jurisdiction is not divested of validity merely because proceedings were assumed irregularly without a formal transfer order, especially where the assessee acquiesced.

---