9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aurant at Jalandhar and is a registered dealer under the sales tax laws. He filed quarterly returns disclosing its gross turnover for Rs. 12,16,069 for the year 1978-79. The Assessing Authority being not satisfied with the returns filed by the appellant issued the appellant a statutory notice in form ST XIV under section 11(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the assessment was framed by the Assessing Authority, Jalandhar II, creating an additional demand of Rs. 47,714 vide his order dated July 5, 1996. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order passed by the Assessing Authority, Jalandhar, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar, who dismissed the appeal vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not been charged/collected from the customers while catering the food in restaurant? (vi) Whether penalty provisions contained in section 10(6) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case?" A perusal of the reference order shows that with regard to the first question as to whether the order of assessment passed after a delay of 18 years suffers from the vice of inordinate delay, in the present case, the assessee had filed his return for the year 1978-79. The Assessing Authority passed the assessment order on July 5, 1996, creating an additional demand of Rs. 47,714. The additional demand was subsequently reduced by the Assessing Authority by passing the rectification order. Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the assessment order on July 5, 1996. There could not have been any possibility of having passed any order of assessment, if there was any stay order of the court. As the assessment order was passed after an inordinate delay of 18 years, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessment for the assessment year 1978-79 has to be annulled and the same is annulled. Accordingly, question No. 1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of the aforementioned discussion and answer to question No. 1, we find no necessity to adjudicate upon other questions of law framed in this case. As a result of the aforementioned discussion the assessment order relating to the assessment year 1978-79 against the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
