Court sets aside orders, remits matter to Tax Commissioner for compliance. Respondent to appear before authority.

The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ludhiana-III, to be dealt with in accordance with the law. The respondent-assessee was directed to appear before the concerned authority for further proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and propriety of the order of assessment dated August 14, 2001.
2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner under section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.
3. Validity of the "F forms" submitted by the dealer.
4. Exercise of rectification jurisdiction by the VAT Tribunal.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Jurisdiction to pass an order under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Legality and Propriety of the Order of Assessment:
The writ petition challenges the order dated August 14, 2001, where the assessing authority accepted 66 statutory "F forms" submitted by the dealer to claim a deduction of Rs. 25,19,16,609.37 as transfers otherwise than by way of sales. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner later discovered that the "F forms" were forged, leading to a suo motu notice under section 21 of the State Act to examine the legality of the assessment order.

2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner:
The dealer contested the jurisdiction of the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner to issue a notice under section 21 of the State Act. The revisional authority, without addressing this preliminary objection, found the "F forms" to be forged and remanded the case to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner for further inquiry. This was upheld by the Sales Tax Tribunal and this court in previous proceedings.

3. Validity of the "F forms":
The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Revisional Authority, Ludhiana-III, rejected the dealer's claim of transfer of goods other than by way of sales due to defective "F forms." The dealer argued that the transfer of goods could be proved by other evidence and that the consignor should not be held responsible for the consignee's misdeeds.

4. Exercise of Rectification Jurisdiction by the VAT Tribunal:
The VAT Tribunal accepted the dealer's rectification application, which was challenged by the State. The Tribunal's rectification was argued to be a change of opinion rather than an error apparent on the face of the record. The dealer's counsel argued that the rectification was necessary due to non-consideration of contentions raised by the dealer.

5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The dealer claimed a violation of natural justice as they were not confronted with the report from Delhi sales tax authorities or any Gazette notification regarding the cancellation of registration certificates or loss of "F forms." The court found that the dealer was not afforded an effective opportunity to be heard, leading to a violation of natural justice.

6. Jurisdiction to Pass an Order Under the Central Sales Tax Act:
The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner passed an order under the Central Act, rejecting the claim of consignment transfers due to defective "F forms." The dealer argued that the initial proceedings were under the State Act, and no proceedings were initiated under the Central Act. The Tribunal did not address this jurisdictional issue in its order.

Conclusion:
The court overruled the preliminary objection regarding the alternative remedy and dealt with the issues on merits. The court found that the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Revisional Authority exercised revisional jurisdiction a second time, which was beyond the remand directions. The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ludhiana-III, to be dealt with in accordance with the law. The respondent-assessee was directed to appear before the concerned authority for further proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---