Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

i.s. tiwana, j.1. the petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th june, 1972 (annexure a to the petition), issued by the assessing authority, ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by sub-section (4) of section 11 of the punjab general sales tax act, 1948. in order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :section 11. (1) if the assessing authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.(2) if the assessing authority is not satisfied without requiring.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

I.S. Tiwana, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '621287',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
			'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
			'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
			'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '621287',
		(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs the Excise and Taxation Officer Assessing Authority - Citation 621287 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '621287',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972',
		'appellant' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'casenote' => ' - Sections 80 (2) & 89 & Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 85 & 80: [T.S. Thakur, CJ, Jasbir Singh & Surya Kant, JJ] Appeal against orders of State or Regional Transport authority  imitation  Held, A stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. That is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the Act. So viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) Sections 80 and 89 of the Act read with Rule 85 of the Rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. If a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. Allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. Therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed  by the State or Regional Transport Authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. Thus,. In cases where the State or Regional Transport Authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. -  1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer. 2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided :If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer :Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959. 4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years. 6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer;',
		'citingcases' => '*               *                     *                   *',
		'counselplain' => ' Arun Nehra, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' J.K. Sood, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1981-11-04',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' I.S. Tiwana, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.</p><p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :</p><p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.</p><p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.</p><p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.</p><p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.</p><p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :</p><p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.</p><p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.</p><p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :</p><p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.</p><p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1982]49STC56(P&amp; H)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '621287',
	(int) 1 => 'hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/621287/hardit-singh-bhagat-vs-assessing-authority'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>I.S. Tiwana, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner impugns the notice dated 16th June, 1972 (annexure A to the petition), issued by the Assessing Authority, Ludhiana, primarily on the ground that the same is barred by time as envisaged by Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it is but necessary to refer to the relevant parts of this section :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>Section 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer or the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied without requiring the presence of dealer who furnished the returns or production of evidence that the returns furnished in respect of any period are correct and complete, he shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him, on a date and at a place specified therein, either to attend in person or to produce or to cause to be produced any evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>* * * *(4) If a dealer having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within five years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>2. The case of the petitioner is that this notice relates to the assessment year 1966-67, ending on 31st March, 1967, and it having been issued on 16th June, 1972, is obviously beyond a period of five years from the end of the last quarter of the assessment year 1966-67 and thus the Assessing Authority has no jurisdiction to proceed to assess the petitioner on 'best judgment' basis in view of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The case of the respondent-authorities on the other hand is that there is no limitation prescribed for the issuance of a notice under Section 11(2) of the Act and the bar of limitation provided in Sub-section (4) of this section does not apply to the facts of this case.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>3. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, I do not find any merit in the stand taken by the respondent-authorities. In fact the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by Punjab Act No. 28 of 1965, came up for consideration of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC). Vide this amendment only the word 'registered' prior to the word 'dealer' has been dropped and the period of limitation has been raised from three years to five years. In all other respects the amended Sub-section (4) is in pari materia with Sub-section (4) of the Act as it stood prior to Punjab Amendment Act No. 28 of 1965. While interpreting that Sub-section, this is what has been held by the Supreme Court :',
	(int) 7 => '<p>Section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, provided : 'If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2), the Assessing Authority shall, within three years after the expiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax due from the dealer : Held, (i) that the power to make the best judgment assessment could be exercised only within the period of three years mentioned in the Sub-section and the three years had to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the returns had been filed; (ii) that where the last of the quarters in respect of which the petitioner filed his returns ended on 31st March, 1956, the assessing authority could not proceed to make a best judgment assessment in respect of this quarter after 31st March, 1959.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>4. Thus it is patently clear that the power to make the best judgment assessment can only be exercised within a period of five years mentioned in the sub-section and that period has to be counted from the end of each quarter in respect of which the return has been filed by the assessee. Where the last quarter in respect of which the petitioner filed his return ended on 31st March, 1967, the Assessing Authority cannot proceed to make the best judgment assessment in respect of that quarter or the period preceding that on or after 16th June, 1972, that is, the date on which the impugned notice has been issued.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>5. Mr. Sood, the learned counsel for the respondent-authorities, points out that the stand taken by the respondent-authorities is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer [1977] 39 STC 19 (SC). Having gone through that judgment, I find that the stand of the learned counsel is not correct. In this judgment, their Lordships have neither dissented from nor disapproved their earlier dictum recorded in Madan Lal Atom's case [1961] 12 STC 387 (SC) and rather the following observations made in this judgment completely support the case of the petitioner :',
	(int) 10 => '<p>For the issuance of a notice under Sub-section (2) no time-limit has been fixed, but the Assessing Authority must remain on its guard of taking the steps and completing the assessment as soon as it may be possible to do so. Otherwise, the risk involved may just be pointed out. Take a case where a notice under Sub-section (2) is issued after the expiry or just on the verge of expiry of the period of 5 years and the dealer fails to comply with the terms of the notice. In such a case the Assessing Authority may have to proceed to make the best judgment assessment under Sub-section (4) attracting the bar of limitation of 5 years.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>6. In the light of the aboye-noted authoritative pronouncement, I find that the impugned notice, annexure A, issued to the petitioner with a view to proceed to assess his liability on 'best judgment' basis, is wholly without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. Thus I quash this notice and allow this petition to that extent. I, however, pass no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Sales Tax
Court	Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On	Nov-04-1981
Case Number	Civil Writ No. 1982 of 1972
Judge	I.S. Tiwana, J.
Reported in	[1982]49STC56(P& H)
Appellant	Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh
Respondent	The Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority
Appellant Advocate	Arun Nehra, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	J.K. Sood, Adv.
Disposition	Petition allowed
Cases Referred	Indian Alumininm Cables Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer

Hardit Singh Bhagat Singh Vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority - Court Judgment