1967 (10) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uthority proceeding to assess the respondent to sales tax with effect from Ist April, 1959 to 31st March, 1960, was challenged, and as would appear from the judgment of the learned, Single Judge, two contentions were advanced before him, namely - (i) that the petitioner was exempted from the levy of sales tax under section 6 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and that the exemption was withdrawn by Punjab Act 8 of 1962, which came into force on the 2nd June, 1962, and, therefore, unless there is a specific provision charging sales tax retrospectively the firm cannot be made liable to pay the sales tax retrospectively; and (ii) that the best judgment assessment which was made on 21st September, 1962, was made without notice and hence the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jab Act No. 8 of 1962) which received the assent of the Governor on 28th May, 1962, and was published in the Punjab Gazette (Extraordinary) Legislative Supplement, Part 1, dated 2nd June, 1962. Sub-section (2) of section 1 of the amended Act runs as follows: "It shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of April, 1959.11 The learned Single Judge while holding that the Legislature could validly impose a tax retrospectively, was of the view that the authorities could not recover a tax retrospectively by recourse to the deeming provision which merely withdrew the exemption and that he could not attribute to the Legislature an intention to take away the exemption enjoyed by persons who were lawfully exempted previously from....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....but in this case no such notice of three months was given. This argument, however, proceeds from some misconception because the deletion of item 49 from Schedule B in this case was by an Act of the Legislature and so the provisions of sub-section (2) cannot help the respondent. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the case sent back to the learned Single Judge for determining the second contention raised before him which he considered unnecessary to deal with. In these circumstances, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal. SHAMSHER BAHADUR, J.-I agree. The case came on for final hearing before D.K. Mahajan, J., and the learned Judge passed the following order on 27th November, 1967. Order D.K. MAHAJAN, J.-This order ....