TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 809
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt in the case of M/s Subh Timb Steel Ltd., is sustainable in law ? (iii) Whether the law laid down by this Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s Subh Timb Steel Ltd. In 2010 holding that where no period was provided the assessment order is to be passed within 3 years and in any event not beyond the period of 5 years could be made applicable in the cases decided much before the pronouncement of this judgment ?" Assessment of the respondent-assessee for the year 1988-89 was framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 11(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act') on 5.3.1999 levying purchase tax on sugarcane. Vide order dated 25.1.2002, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar (hereinafter described as 'the appellate authority') set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority and remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority to be decided afresh in terms of the observations made in the order. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal, who vide order dated 1.4.2013, accepted the appeal filed by the assessee referring to the judgment of this Court in M/s Shubh Timb Steel Ltd. a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Shubh Timb Steel Ltd. and others' case (supra). The order of assessment was set aside as the same had been passed more than 5 years after the close of the assessment year. 7. VATAP No. 125 of 2013 Assessment of the respondent-assessee for the year 1989-90 was framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 11(3) of the Act on 29.9.1995 levying purchase tax on sugarcane. Vide order dated 25.1.2002, the appellate authority set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority and remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority to be decided afresh in terms of the observations made in the order. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal, who vide order dated 1.4.2013, accepted the appeal filed by the assessee referring to the judgment of this Court in M/s Shubh Timb Steel Ltd. and others' case (supra). The order of assessment was set aside as the same had been passed more than 5 years after the close of the assessment year. 8. VATAP No. 126 of 2013 Assessment of the respondent-assessee for the year 1992-93 was framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 11(3) of the Act on 30.12.1999 levying purchase tax on sugarcane. Vide order dated 25.1.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellate authority set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority and remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority to be decided afresh in terms of the observations made in the order. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal, who vide order dated 1.4.2013, accepted the appeal filed by the assessee referring to the judgment of this Court in M/s Shubh Timb Steel Ltd. and others' case (supra). The order of assessment was set aside as the same had been passed more than 5 years after the close of the assessment year. 12. VATAP No. 163 of 2013 Assessment of the respondent-assessee for the year 1977-78 was framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 11(3) of the Act on 20.3.1986 levying purchase tax on sugarcane. Vide order dated 8.10.2004, the appellate authority set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority and remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority to be decided afresh in terms of the observations made in the order. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal, who vide order dated 29.4.2013, accepted the appeal filed by the assessee referring to the judgment of this Court in M/s Shubh Timb ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eel Ltd. and others' case (supra). The order of assessment was set aside as the same had been passed more than 5 years after the close of the assessment year. Arguments of the appellant/State 16. Learned counsel for the State submitted that under Section 11 (3) of the Act, as existed originally, there was no time limit prescribed for framing of assessment, however, the same was amended on 20.4.1998. Period of three years was provided for framing of assessment from the last date of filing of returns for the year in question. The amendment was effective w.e.f. 3.3.1998. The period involved in all the appeals is prior to 1998, however, in some cases, the assessments were framed before 3.3.1998, whereas in some cases these were thereafter. The Tribunal, while accepting the appeal filed by the assessee, set aside the same only on the ground that the same was framed more than 5 years after the close of the assessment year, treating 5 years to be reasonable period for framing the assessment. He submitted that judgment in M/s Shubh Timb Steel Ltd. and others' case (supra) is distinguishable. The Tribunal, while setting aside the orders passed by the authorities below had recorde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, that too pertained to the year in question. 18. It was further submitted that Section 13-B of the Act provides that records are to be preserved by an assessee only for a period of five years. Section 11-C of the Act prescribes that there is no time limit for completion of assessment or re-assessment in certain cases. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that where the assessment proceedings relating to any dealer remained stayed under the orders of any court or other authority for any period, such period shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation for assessment or re-assessment provided under this Act. But in the present cases, there was no stay. 19. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the assessees that the plea that assessments had been kept pending on account of pendency of matters before Hon'ble the Supreme Court is not correct, as in some of the cases those had been framed. 20. The order passed by this Court in VATAP No. 110 of 2013- State of Punjab v. The Patiala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, decided on 26.2.2014, was relied upon, where order of assessment passed after five years was set aside. Reliance was also placed upon CIT v. Sadhu Ram, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;ble the Supreme Court in Jagatjit Sugar Mills and others' case (supra) was followed opining that purchaser of sugarcane is liable to pay tax on its purchase. While disposing of the writ petitions, the authorities were directed to decide the matters expeditiously and determine tax liability in the light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jagatjit Sugar Mills and others' case (supra). Interim orders passed were vacated. 25. A perusal of the order passed by this Court in M/s Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Morinda's case (supra) shows that bunch of twenty one writ petitions were decided. The petitioners before this Court in the aforesaid petitions were M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills; M/s Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.; M/s Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.; M/s Janta Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.; M/s Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. and M/s Punjab Khand Udyog Limited. The details of the writ petitions, the petitioners therein and the assessment year involved, wherever could be located from the record, are extracted below: Sr. No. Writ Petition Name of the petitioner Assessment year 1 661 of 1984 M/s Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the facts and the circumstances of the case, the assessment (original as well as assessment on remanded case) of the dealer framed by the Assessing Authority is assessment under section 11(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and therefore time barred having been completed beyond the period of five years prescribed under the said subsection?" (Under Section 11(4) of the Act, period of five years was not prescribed as such). 28. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd., (2007) 10 VST 180, it was opined that assessments framed after 5 years from the last date prescribed for filing of return were illegal, hence, set aside. 29. A perusal of the facts, as noticed in paragraph No. 23 above shows that assessments in the cases of different assessees for different assessment years in bunch of appeals were framed much after 5 years after the last date for filing of return. For none of the assessment years in bunch of appeals under consideration, writ petitions were pending in this court, which were disposed of vide common judgment in M/s Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd.'s case (supra). He....