2009 (7) TMI 1155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... prior deposit of 25 per cent of the amount for which demand has been raised by the Revenue. Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Assessing Authority analysed the assessment in respect of the assessee-respondent for the period July 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003 under section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity "the Act") vide order dated September 18, 2008 creating additional demand of tax and penalty (A1). It is pertinent to notice that the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Authority after obtaining extension from the Excise and Taxation Commissioner as per the provisions of section 11(10) of the Act (A2). The assessee-respondent filed an appeal under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner, Punjab was accepted and the order granting extension was et aside by the Tribunal on November 20, 2008 (A6). A perusal of the order shows that period of limitation to finalise the assessment had expired. The finding of the Tribunal is discernible from the following para which reads thus: "Even if the assessment for the first quarter, i.e., 2002-03 had been completed within time, still the order dated July 25, 2007 had not been in respect of the year 2002-03. It was only for the year 2003-04. As far as year 2002-03 is concerned, the order is dated June 6, 2008 only which appears to have even been wrongly drafted mentioning the earlier dated July 25, 2007 which was not in respect of the year 2002-03 even. In any case as per judg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... limitation passed on June 6, 2008 by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner has been set aside by the Tribunal vide its order dated November 20, 2008 (A6) then the order of assessment itself becomes void ab initio. Once there is no possibility of framing of assessment owing to bar of limitation then no useful purpose would be served by insisting on a deposit of 25 per cent of the total demand raised as per the requirement of section 20(5) of the Act before hearing the appeal of the assessee-respondent. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the considered view that the argument of the counsel for the assessee-respondent is meritorious. It may be true that the first appellate authority like the Deputy....