1969 (5) TMI 49

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Supreme (1) See page 258 supra. (2) [1964] 15 S.T.C. 746. Court in State of Orissa v. Debaki Debi and Others[1964] 15 S.T.C. 153. In the circumstances, it is desirable that this Letters Patent appeal should also be placed before the Full Bench for decision along with Civil Writ No. 1232 of 1965(2). In pursuance of the abovesaid order of reference, the appeal came on for hearing before the Full Bench. B.S. Dhillon, Advocate-General (Punjab) with B.S. Shant and Rattan Singh, for the appellants. Bhagirath Dass with B.K. Jhingan and S.K. Hiraji, for the respondent. JUDGMENT TULI, J.-This appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent has been placed before us for decision in pursuance of the order of S.B. Capoor and R.S. Narula, JJ., of 26th ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s taken the view that the proceedings taken for fresh assessment by the assessing authority in pursuance of the order of remand made by the Commissioner in exercise of revisional powers is governed by the period of limitation provided in sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 11 or section 11-A of the Act. This view of the learned judge is well-founded and finds support from a judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jaipuria Brothers Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others[1965] 16 S.T.C. 494. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Sub-section (3) of section 10 of that Act provides: "The revising authority may in his discretion at any time suo motu or on the application of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e view of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court to be erroneous, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under: "In our view the High Court was in error in so limiting the operation of section 21. That section imposes a restriction upon the power of the Sales Tax Officer: that officer is competent within three years next succeeding the date to which the tax relates to assess tax payable on the turnover which has escaped assessment. But the section does not provide expressly, nor is there any implication, that the period within which reassessment may be made applies only to those cases where the Sales Tax Officer acts on his own initiative and not pursuant to the directions of the appellate or the revisional authority." Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, Patiala, on 15th March, 1963, in the presence of the Taxation Inspector on behalf of the State and Shri Kidar Nath who appeared for the respondent. The revising authority held that "the order passed by the assessing authority in this case is improper and is set aside. The assessing authority should have scrutinized necessary declaration forms before giving deductions under rule 26 on account of sale to registered dealers. Since the case was being decided on best judgment basis, deductions on account of sale to registered dealers should not have been allowed. Moreover, suo motu powers are not cabined by any time-limit. The case is, therefore, sent down to the Assessing Authority, Amritsa....