Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to the notice (annexure P4) dated November 18, 2011, whereby the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner, in exercise of revisional powers called upon the petitioner to appear before him with complete books of accounts; purchase vouchers or any other evidence in support of assessment finalised by the Excise and Taxation Officer, Moga, vide order dated March 10, 2009, for the assessment years 2005 -06 and 2006 -07. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner submitted its sales tax returns for the assessment years 2005 -06 and 2006 -07. Initially, the assessment was finalised vide order dated December 7, 2007, whereby demands were created against the petitioner. The petitioner filed writ petitions before this court and the orders of assessment were set aside. Thereafter, the assessments have been framed as mentioned above.
(2.) THE Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner has now issued show -cause notices which has been attached as annexure P4 with the writ petition, on the ground that the order of assessment suffers from illegality and impropriety on the ground mentioned therein. The petitioner has been called upon to appear before the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner on December 5, 2011 with the documents mentioned above. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the issuance of the said show -cause notices, inter alia, for the reason: (i) That the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner is not a Commissioner, competent to invoke revisional jurisdiction in terms of section 65 of the Act. (ii) That the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner has acted at the behest of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, thus the revisional authority did not apply its own mind as to whether the order passed by the assessing officer, should be revised. It is contended that the revisional authority can exercise jurisdiction of its own motion and not at the instance of a subordinate authority. (iii) That the entire basis of issuance of show cause notices that the assessment order suffers from illegality, is incorrect as the very basis of exercising the revisional jurisdiction, are not disclosed.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, we do not find any merit in the present petition.;