TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (12) TMI 315
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Central Act"). The Assessing Authority accepted the returns relating to the assessment year 1971-72. In respect of the assessment year 1972-73, the returns submitted by the petitioner, M/s. Prestolite of India Limited, Faridabad ("the Company" shortly) for two quarters were available with the Assessing Authority and they had been accepted. For the second two quarters, it was contended by the Company that it had submitted its returns, but since those were not found on the record of the department, the Assessing Authority accepted the records furnished by it by way of trading account and determined the turnover in relation to the sale. Therefore, ultimately this is a case where the returns of the Company had been accepted by the Assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Company did not produce the C and D forms. It had been contending that the records were destroyed by fire and, therefore, they could not produce the C and D forms and that the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Authority were invalid. It was also contended on behalf of the Company before the Commissioner that a period of 5 years only was available for assessment under the relevant provisions of the Punjab Act which was in force during the years 1971-72 and 1972-73, as also under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (to be called "the Haryana Act") which were now applicable for both the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 and that the assessments were barred by limitation. The Commissioner rejected both the contentions a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n before the Tribunal for reference to the High Court. However, the Company filed an application before the Tribunal for reviewing its order. The provisions under which it purported to file the review application was section 41 of the Haryana Act. It provides that if an assessee discovers any new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when such an order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, can file a review application. We have gone through the review application. We find that the Company has not relied on any new or important matter or evidence, which after exercise of due ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns submitted by the Company have been accepted and when the Assessing Authority does not want to proceed on the best judgment assessment basis. Factually, however, we may mention that notice was given to the Company, as seen from the record. The Company was represented by its counsel before the Assessing Authority. The learned counsel for the Company took time for producing the C and D forms or duplicate thereof before the Assessing Authority. However, in spite of the fact that 3/4 adjournments were given to the Company for the said purpose, it did not produce the said records. In these circumstances, the Assessing Authority felt that as the assessment in question was time bound, he could not wait any more and made the assessment orders in ....