TMI Blog1964 (5) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n January, 1963, on the basis of the quarterly returns filed by the petitioner for the first two quarters of the year 1962-63. In defending his order of assessment it is maintained on behalf of the respondent that there is nothing in the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, to prohibit the assessment before the expiry of the relevant year and under sections 10 and 11 of that Act the respondent had ample authority to pass the impugned order and to order recovery of the tax so assessed. Reliance in this connection is placed upon a recent decision of Mahajan, J., dated 31st October, 1963, in Tara Chand Lajpat Rai v. The Excise and Taxation Officer, LudhianaCivil Writ No. 1123 of 1962., wherein the learned Judge observed: "Sections 10 and 11, if read together, leave no manner of doubt that the Department can call upon the assessee to file quarterly or monthly returns and the assessment can be made on the returns filed; and once the assessment is made, the tax can be recovered." The petitioner's learned counsel Shri Bhagirath Dass while conceding that under sections 10 and 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, the Assessing Authority was entitled to call for quarterly or monthl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one year from the date of the order of assessment passed for a particular year. The observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mathra Parshad and Sons v. State of Punjab and Others A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 745; 13 S.T.C. 180. , that the tax is for a year appear to lend weight to the argument of Shri Bhagirath Dass. In view, however, of the fact that such questions crop up frequently and are of grave public importance I consider it expedient that the matter be decided authoritatively by a larger Bench. Let the papers be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice for necessary orders. In pursuance of the abovesaid order of reference, the petition came on for hearing before the Division Bench consisting of Grover and Gurdev Singh, JJ. Bhagirath Dass and B. K. Jhingan, for the petitioner. T.S. Munjral, for the respondent. JUDGMENT GROVER, J.-This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by which the order dated 22nd January, 1963, of assessment of sales tax for two quarters ending 30th June, 1962, and 30th September, 1962, have been challenged. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of a firm known as Mansa Ram Sushil Kumar and is engaged in the business of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as paying sales tax on manufactured tobacco also. It paid sales tax for the next quarter ending 30th June, 1954, as well. On 27th September, 1954, the Government issued a notification by which the schedule of exemptions under section 6 of the Act was amended by the inclusion of item 51 which was "manufactured tobacco as defined in the Punjab Tobacco Vend Fees Act, 1954." Certain Press Notes were also issued by the State Government prior to the notification of 27th September, 1954, which need not be mentioned. The question which was raised before their Lordships was whether the exemptions contained in the notification issued on 27th September, 1954, had effect from that date or from the beginning of the financial year. The arguments canvassed by the appellants and the respondents were noticed. The appellants emphasised the words "gross turnover during the year" in section 4(1) and the words "taxable turnover every year of a dealer" in section 5(1) and argued that the tax was to be computed yearwise and the exemption must, therefore, operate for the whole of the year in which it was made irrespective of the date on which the notification was issued. The respondents, on the other hand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at period sales tax was exigible. Under section 11 the assessment of the tax either on the acceptance of the return or after production of such evidence as might be required was to be made. From the provisions of section 11 it did not appear that returns were to be scrutinised at the end of the year like in income-tax cases and assessment made on the income of the year preceding the assessment year. The assessment was to be made in regard to each return whenever according to the rules the return had to be and was made. It is abundantly clear that the principal point of difference between the majority and the minority decisions is whether, owing to the provisions contained in sections 10 and 11 and the various rules, the tax was to be levied on the taxable turnover of a dealer every year or whether the tax was leviable quarterly or monthly as the Assessing Authority may decide. In the majority judgment, no doubt was left that the tax was for a whole year and the division of the year and the taxable turnover into different parts was meant to make easy the collection of tax; whereas according to the minority decision the tax was leviable in regard to each return whenever made accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Act similar to section 22-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 141 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, empowering the making of a provisional assessment before the end of the year. According to the majority judgment in Mathra Parshad's caseA.I.R. 1962 S.C. 745; 13 S.T.C. 180., the filing of periodical returns and the payment of tax according to those returns is only a method of collecting the tax, be it quarterly or monthly. It appears, therefore, that there is no machinery in the Act by which the assessment can be made every time a return for a period is filed. It is true that section 11 contains language which may lend support to the view that the Assessing Authority can make an assessment with regard to each period for which the return is furnished. Similarly, rule 33 of the Rules seems to indicate that a notice can be served in Form S.T. XIV upon a dealer for assessing him for a period or periods but the language of this rule is only consistent with the provisions of section 11. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that if full effect is to be given to the plain language employed in section 11, no serious difficulty will arise even if during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
