TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en date (P11) is also quashed. - CWP Nos. 8554, 8557, 8578, 8618, 8620, 8622, 8625 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2012 - KUMAR M.M. AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. For the Appellant : D.S. Patwalia For the Respondents : Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab, The judgment of the court was delivered by M.M. KUMAR J.- This order shall dispose of a bunch of petitions CWP Nos. 8554, 8557, 8578, 8618, 8620, 8622 and 8625 of 2009. because a common question of law raised is whether reassessment framed by the assessing authority is within the parameter of limitation provided under section 11A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, the Act ). It may be noted that the period of five years has been prescribed under section 11A(1) of the Act for reopening of an assessment order. The facts are being referred from CWP No. 8554 of 2009. In this case, the assessment order was passed on June 4, 2004 (P5) in respect of assessment year 1998-99. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the manufacturing of white crystal sugar at its sugar mill situated in Village Patran, District Pat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been urged that the sugar mill of the petitioner started production on December 21, 1994 and on November 21, 1995. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Patiala, issued a certificate of eligibility in favour of the petitioner for the grant of incentive of sales tax exemption in terms of the Code . It was granted sales tax exemption for a period of 84 months commencing from December 21, 1994 for the maximum amount of ₹ 36,68,43,000 (P2). On December 16, 1995, the petitioner submitted an application in form ST (D E) to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, for the grant of exemption certificate under section 10A of the Act as well as the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax (Deferment and Exemption) Rules, 1991, which have been framed under the Act. In column (f) of the said application the petitioner has given the description of items manufactured by it as White crystal sugar and other allied products . The exemption was sought from payment of sales tax for 84 months for an amount of ₹ 36,68,43,000 (P3). On February 5, 1996, the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, issued the exemption certificate granting exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. 1996-1997 16,20,470 4. 1997-1998 38,15,497 5. 1998-1999 29,12,037 6. 1999-2000 34,79,784 7. 2000-2001 17,39,834 Total 1,41,32,207 9. The explanation furnished by the petitioner in the reply dated December 17, 2008 (P9) to the said notices did not find favour with the assessing authority-respondent No. 3. On March 31, 2009, the assessing authority passed separate orders in respect of each of the assessment years rejecting the contention raised by the petitioner holding that the tax due on the sale of bardana and by-products of white crystal sugar could not have been adjusted from the exemption available to the petitioner as the exemption was only in respect of white crystal sugar . The petitioner was asked to deposit the total amount of ₹ 1,41,32,205 for the assessment years 1994-95 to 2000-01. On March 31, 2009 itself the assessing authority issued notice(s) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allied products for which exemption had been granted. However, his star argument is that the notice issued in December 2008 calling upon the petitioner to appear on December 10, 2008 (P8) for reassessment of the assessment order(s) in respect of assessment years 1994-95 to 2000-01 would be barred by time. According to the learned counsel under section 11A of the Act reassessment could be ordered within a period of five years following the close of the year for which the turnover is proposed to be reassessed. It has been emphasised by Mr. Patwalia that the notice issued to the petitioner is undated, yet it is clear that the petitioner was asked to appear on December 10, 2008. He has maintained that in respect of the assessment year 2000-01 the closing date was March 31, 2001 and five years would come to an end on March 31, 2006. It has, therefore, been urged that no reassessment after expiry of five years would be permissible as per the provisions of section 11A of the Act. 12. As per contra, Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab, has made submissions on the merit of the controversy and has argued that no exemption was permissible on molasses, bagasse and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in possession of the assessing authority that the turnover of the business of a dealer has been under-assessed or escaped assessment in any year then by giving a reasonable notice within five years following the close of the year for which the turnover is proposed to be reassessed, the assessing authority may proceed to reassess the tax payable on the turnover which has been underassessed or has escaped assessment. According to sub-section (2) of the aforesaid provision an assessing authority within a period of one year from the date of any order passed by it, could rectify any clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent from the record. Thus, on a bare perusal of section 11A(1), the period of five years has to commence following the close of the year for which the turnover is proposed to be reassessed. Moreover, the reassessment has to be made on the basis of definite information that the business of the dealer has been under-assessed or has escaped assessment in any year. Accordingly, we find merit in the contention raised by Mr. Patwalia that the period of five years has to commence from March 31, 2001 the end date of the last assessment year 2000-01, which is the latest year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at no period of limitation has been prescribed in section 21 of the Act for exercise of revisional jurisdiction, however, the issue is no longer res integra because in paras 17, 18 and 19 of the judgment rendered by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd. [2007] 10 VST 180 (SC); [2007] 11 SCC 363, their Lordships of the Supreme Court has engrafted a five years period of limitation in section 21 of the Act holding that if no period of limitation has been prescribed then the statutory authority is obliged to exercise jurisdiction within a reasonable period. After citing section 21, in paras 17, 18 and 19 it has been observed that the maximum period of limitation for exercise of revisional jurisdiction has to be five years. The observations made by their Lordships' in the aforesaid paras read as under (page 185 in 10 VST): 17. A bare reading of section 21 of the Act would reveal that although no period of limitation has been prescribed therefor, the same would not mean that the suo motu power can be exercised at any time. 18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
