TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hra, District Patiala along with connected appeals had held that in all those cases which pertain to assessment year prior to insertion of the period of limitation under section 11(3) of the Act by Ordinance with effect from March 3, 1998, which was replaced by Punjab Act 12 of 1998 published on April 20, 1998, the assessment was required to be finalised latest by April 30, 2001. - Decided against Revenue. - VATAPNos. 32 to 36 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 13-5-2014 - AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND JASPAL SINGH JJ. Ms. Radhika Suri and Vikram Bishnoi, Additional Advocate-General Punjab, for the appellants. JUDGEMENT This order shall dispose of VATAP Nos. 32 to 36 of 2014 as according to the learned counsel for the appellants-State, the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the respondent? 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in VATAP No. 32 of 2014 may be noticed. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of sugar at Fazilka, District Ferozepur. It filed its monthly returns relevant to assessment year 1992-93. Not satisfied with the same, statutory notice was issued to the respondent by the assessing authority. After giving opportunity to the respondent and examining the record, it was found that the basic raw material used by the respondent was sugarcane and that during the process of manufacturing sugar, by products like molasses, bagasse and press mud were produced. Thus, the respondent was liable to pay purchase tax on sugarcane. The assessment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve from March 3, 1998 which was replaced by Punjab Act 12 of 1998 published on April 20, 1998, whereby limitation of three years for completion of the assessment has been prescribed, any assessment order for assessment years up to 1997-98 can be validly passed after April 30, 2001. 6. The matter is no longer res integra. This court while deciding identical issue against the appellant vide order dated February 26, 2014 in VATAP No. 110 of 2013 (State of Punjab v. Patiala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, Rakhra, District Patiala[2014] 76 VST 217 (P and H)) along with connected appeals had held that in all those cases which pertain to assessment year prior to insertion of the period of limitation under section 11(3) of the Act by Ordinance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
