9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the common notice dated 29.11.2005 (Annexure P-7) issued under Section 21(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act'), for suo-moto revision of the assessments for the assessment years 1990-91, 1992-93 and 1993-94, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Legal issue raised is that the notice dated 29.11.2005 was issued for revision more than 7 yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the writ petition against the show cause notice was also considered and it was opined that the revisional authority could not have gone into the issue sought to be raised in the writ petition being creature of statute. Relevant paras of the judgment are extracted below:- "17. A bare reading of Section 21 of the Act would reveal that although no period of limitation has been prescribed therefor, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicated hereinbefore, maximum period of limitation provided for in subsection (6) of Section 11 of the Act is five years. xx xx xx 23. The question as to what would be the reasonable period did not fall for consideration therein. The binding precedent of this Court, some of which had been referred to us heretobefore, had not been considered. The counsel appearing for the parties were remiss in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat would be the reasonable period for exercising the revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 21 (1) of the Act. The High Court, furthermore in its judgment, has referred to some binding precedents which have been operating in the field. The High Court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment." If read in the light of the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
