1958 (4) TMI 106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ear 1949-50 giving its gross turnover at Rs. 7,805, on 23rd of July, 1950. The return was, however, not accepted and the assessee was asked to produce evidence on 21st of September, 1950. However, on that very day, i.e., 23rd July, 1950, the Assessing Authority received secret information that huge stocks of iron material were concealed by the assessee in different places in Mandi Gobindgarh. In pursuance of this, the Assessing Authority, accompanied by an Inspector, went to various places where the assessee was supposed to have concealed the stock and actually found considerable quantity of galvanized sheets in a building known as Drug House at Gobindgarh and another quantity of such sheets and iron material weighing something like 500 mau....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1,00,000. The firm was consequently assessed at Rs. 3,125. The appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax was accepted and the declared turnover of Rs. 7,805 was accepted. Whereas the order of the Assessing Authority is a detailed one, covering about 10 typed pages, the Appellate Authority wrote a short 1½ page judgment and the grounds taken in accepting the appeal do not appear to be very convincing. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner, suo motu acting under section 21 of the Ordinance aforesaid, set aside the appellate order and restored that of the Assessing Authority. Inter alia, the Commissioner was of the opinion that- (1) the report of Shri Punjab Ratan was brushed aside as based on hearsay. This is wrong, ke....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....law under section 22 was dismissed, but, on directions being issued under sub-section (4) of section 22 by this Court, in General Sales Tax Case No. 3 of 1958, dated 2nd of December, 1960, the following two questions have been referred to this Court by the Financial Commissioner: - (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the revision application of the applicant could have been dismissed as barred by time? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, no question of law arose out of the order of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner? With regard to the first question it is stated in the order of the Financial Commissioner himself that no period of limitation is prescribed either by the Ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lative authority but is fixed merely as a matter of practice by the Tribunal itself under its inherent powers of regulating its procedure." The first question, therefore, must be answered in the negative. Apart from the above, in the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 7th of February, 1958, refusing to refer the matter under section 22, he had come to the conclusion that taking into consideration the fact that the orders were kept reserved by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner and were communicated to the assessee later on, and, if this period and the period for obtaining copies are taken into consideration, the revision was filed well within 90 days. As regards the second question, two points were raised by the learned counsel ....