TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (11) TMI 100
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....these six appeals are all dealers carrying on business in the State of Punjab. They were all assessed to sales tax by the assessing authority, the Excise and Taxation Officer, Jullundur, under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (No. 46 of 1948). The assessments were best judgment assessments under sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 11 of that Act. The respondents challenged these orders of assessment before the High Court of Punjab in petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution on the ground that all the assessment orders had been made after the expiry of three years from the end of the periods to which the assessments related, and since the assessments were not completed within the period of three years mentioned in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve appeals. The respondents were registered dealers. They all filed their returns before the expiry of three years from the end of the periods to which the returns related. Once those returns were filed, proceedings for assessment of sales tax came into existence and there was no question of initiation of proceedings subsequently. The proceedings having been initiated, they could be completed even after the expiry of three years and, consequently, the High Court was not justified in allowing the writ petitions and quashing the assessment orders. In Civil Appeal No. 292/1967, there is a distinctive feature. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent in this appeal drew our attention to the fact that the respondent was not a regis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t proceedings for assessment of the respondent were actually initiated on the 8th March, 1961, when a notice in Form S.T. XIV prescribed under the Rules framed under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act was issued in the name of the respondent. The issue of that notice on 8th March, 1961, resulted in initiation of proceedings against the respondent and, consequently, it cannot be said that the proceedings were started after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in sub- sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 11. In this connection, learned counsel relied on a decision of this Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1962] 1 S.C.R. 823; 12 S.T.C. 387., and urged that in view of that decision we should hold that....