TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 809X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issues have been decided by the Tribunal while rightly appreciating the facts and the legal issues involved - appeal dismissed. - VATAP No. 121 of 2013 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 11-9-2018 - MR. RAJESH BINDAL AND MR. AMIT RAWAL, JJ. For The Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. Sunil K. Mukhi, Advocate, Mr. M. R. Sharma, Advocate And Mr. G. R. Sethi and Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Advocates ORDER Rajesh Bindal J. 1. This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals bearing VATAP Nos. 121 to 126, 138 to 140, 163 to 165 of 2013 and 42 of 2014, as similar common questions of law are involved. 2. Brief facts of different cases are noticed hereunder: 3. VATP No. 121 of 2013 Order dated 1.4.2013 passed by Value Added Tax Tribunal, Punjab (for short, 'the Tribunal') has been challenged by filing the present appeal by the State raising the following substantial questions of law: ( i) Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal is sustainable in law ? ( ii) Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal by relying upon the judgment of this Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s Subh Timb Steel Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llate authority set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority and remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority to be decided afresh in terms of the observations made in the order. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal, who vide order dated 14.3.2013, accepted the appeal filed by the assessee referring to the judgment of this Court in M/s Shubh Timb Steel Ltd. and others' case (supra). The order of assessment was set aside as the same had been passed more than 5 years after the close of the assessment year. 6. VATAP No. 124 of 2013 Assessment of the respondent-assessee for the year 1989-90 was framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 11(3) of the Act on 29.11.2002 levying purchase tax on sugarcane. Vide order dated 29.6.2005, the appellate authority set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority and remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority to be decided afresh in terms of the observations made in the order. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal, who vide order dated 14.3.2013, accepted the appeal filed by the assessee referring to the judgment of this Court in M/s Shubh Tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in M/s Shubh Timb Steel Ltd. and others' case (supra). The order of assessment was set aside as the same had been passed more than 5 years after the close of the assessment year. 10. VATAP No. 139 of 2013 Assessment of the respondent-assessee for the year 1993-94 was framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 11(3) of the Act on 30.12.1999 levying purchase tax on sugarcane. Vide order dated 25.1.2002, the appellate authority set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority and remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority to be decided afresh in terms of the observations made in the order. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal, who vide order dated 1.4.2013, accepted the appeal filed by the assessee referring to the judgment of this Court in M/s Shubh Timb Steel Ltd. and others' case (supra). The order of assessment was set aside as the same had been passed more than 5 years after the close of the assessment year. 11. VATAP No. 140 of 2013 Assessment of the respondent-assessee for the year 1989-90 was framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 11(3) of the Act on 29.9.1995 levying purchase tax on sugarcane. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase tax on sugarcane. Vide order dated 8.10.2004, the appellate authority set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority and remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority to be decided afresh in terms of the observations made in the order. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal, who vide order dated 29.4.2013, accepted the appeal filed by the assessee referring to the judgment of this Court in M/s Shubh Timb Steel Ltd. and others' case (supra). The order of assessment was set aside as the same had been passed more than 5 years after the close of the assessment year. 15. VATAP No. 42 of 2014 Assessment of the respondent-assessee for the year 1976-77 was framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 11(3) of the Act on 20.3.1986 levying purchase tax on sugarcane. Vide order dated 27.1.2005, the appellate authority set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority and remanded the case back to the Assessing Authority to be decided afresh in terms of the observations made in the order. The assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal, who vide order dated 29.4.2013, accepted the appeal filed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble the Supreme Court in Jagatjit Sugar Mills and others' case (supra) and by Full Bench of this Court in M/s Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.'s case (supra), the assessment proceedings were taken up and concluded by passing the orders of assessment, hence, the Tribunal has gone wrong in simply relying upon the law laid down by this Court in M/s Shubh Timb Steel Ltd. and others' case (supra), whereas there were good reasons available on record for not framing the assessments within 5 years. Arguments on behalf of the assessees 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessees submitted that in none of the cases even notices for assessments were served within 5 years what to talk of framing the assessments. Hence, to claim that assessment proceedings were kept pending on request of assessees is misconceived. The date of service of notice has not even been mentioned in the orders of assessment. Undisputedly, the assessments have been framed more than 5 years after the close of assessment year in question. There was no stay of proceedings in the cases in hand either by Hon'ble the Supreme Court or this court, hence, the assessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 121 of 2013 M/s Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills 1988-89 15.3.1999 2 122 of 2013 M/s Tarn Taran Cooperative Sugar Mills 1987-88 29.3.1995 26.12.1988 3 123 of 2013 M/s Tarn Taran Cooperative Sugar Mills 1988-89 17.3.1997 25.9.1989 4 124 of 2013 M/s Tarn Taran Cooperative Sugar Mills 1989-90 29.8.1997 31.1.1995 5 125 of 2013 M/s Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills 1989-90 02.09.95 25.4.1995 6 126 of 2013 M/s Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills 1992-93 30.12.1999 29.9.1996 7 138 of 2013 M/s Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills 1987-88 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 127 of 1980 M/s Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills * 4 128 of 1980 * * 5 202 of 1980 * * 6 232 of 1980 M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills 1975-76 7 427 of 1980 M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills 1974-75 8 2975 of 1980 M/s Janta Cooperative Sugar Mills * 9 5248 of 1982 M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills 1977-78 10 5249 of 1982 M/s Jagatjit Sugar Mills 1978-79 11 5363 of 1982 M/s Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills 1972-73 12 5364 of 1982 M/s Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills 1974 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided. The main issue, which was considered by this court was as under: ( iii) Whether, in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the assessment (original as well as assessment on remanded case) of the dealer framed by the Assessing Authority is assessment under section 11(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and therefore time barred having been completed beyond the period of five years prescribed under the said subsection? ( Under Section 11(4) of the Act, period of five years was not prescribed as such). 28. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd., (2007) 10 VST 180, it was opined that assessments framed after 5 years from the last date prescribed for filing of return were illegal, hence, set aside. 29. A perusal of the facts, as noticed in paragraph No. 23 above shows that assessments in the cases of different assessees for different assessment years in bunch of appeals were framed much after 5 years after the last date for filing of return. For none of the assessment years in bunch of appeals under consideration, writ petitions were pending in this court, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
