TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 902
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d an application under section 22(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, "the Act") with a prayer for referring the question of law. The petitioner-dealer had claimed that those questions emerge out of the order of the Tribunal, dated October 28, 1996, passed in Appeal No. 459 of 1995-96 in respect of the assessment year 1982-83. The Tribunal has accepted the prayer a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filing the returns? In order to appreciate the aforesaid questions of law, few facts may be noticed. The petitioner-dealer is a cooperative sugar mill under the control and management of the Punjab State Sugarfed. Its unit is registered under the provisions of the Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. In the financial year 1982-83, the petitioner-dealer filed its quarterly returns in form ST-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....77; 30,71,060 in respect of sugarcane and issued demand notice for ₹ 21,309, which was paid. The Assessing Authority further ordered that penal action under sections 10(6) and 11D of the Act would be taken later on separately for non-payment of tax on the sale of molasses and for misuse of registration certificate. After issuing show-cause notice, the Assessing Authority vide order dated Sep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner-dealer in the case of Desh Vijay Hosiery Factory, Ludhiana v. State of Punjab [2010] 28 VST 162; [2009] 33 PHT 443. In that case this court has held that the petitioner-dealer was not liable to pay interest for the period before the demand was raised. We have placed reliance on a judgment of another Division Bench of this court rendered in the case of Chaudhary Tractor Company v. State....