2010 (5) TMI 769

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No. 10 of 2009 titled as "Patiala Auto Enterprises v. State of Punjab".   The compendium of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of present petitions and emanating from the record, is that the petitioner-assessee was a registered dealer under the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, "the Act"). It submitted its return for the assessment year 1990-91. The Assessing Authority passed the final order on May 31, 1993. The revisional authority, in exercise of its power under section 21 of the Act, had issued notice to the assessee, as to why the order of the Assessing Authority finalizing the assessment for the year 1990-91, be not revised. As nobody appeared on behalf of the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the instant petitions. The main argument of the learned counsel that since no notice was issued to the assessee, so, the order (annexure P2) passed by the revisional authority after more than five years is time-barred, illegal and not binding on it (assessee), is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.   It is not a matter of dispute that no period of limitation was prescribed for deciding/passing the order of assessment by the revisional authority, during the period of relevant assessment year. As is evident from the record that as the benefit under section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Act was wrongly given to the assessee, therefore, the revisional authority issued notice, which was served upon Sanjiv Kumar, accountant of the ass....