- (1.) The State has filed the present appeal claiming the following substantial questions of law:- "(a) Whether the order dated 15.03.2010 (Annexure A-1) passed by the VAT Tribunal, Punjab is sustainable in law? (b) Whether the period prescribed in sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (since repealed) are mandatory in character or are merely directory in view of the provisions of subsection (10) of this Section? (c) Whether the determination of tax amount, without any change in the turnover returned by a dealer, would come within the ambit of the term "Assessment"? (d) Whether the VAT Tribunal, Punjab, was justified in setting aside the original assessment order dated 18.02.2008 (Annexure A-2) when it had already lost its entity because it was set aside in appeal by the Ist Appellate Authority vide its order dated 22.01.2009 (Annexure A-3)?"
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the assessee is a registered dealer and is engaged in the generation and distribution of electricity and the supply of other allied material. The assessee filed the periodical returns for the year 2001-02. On scrutiny, the assessing authority found that the assessee had not paid sales tax on the meter rents charged by it and vide order dated 18.2.2008 raised an additional demand of Rs. 10,08,51,670/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee-dealer filed an appeal. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner (in short "the Commissioner") vide order dated 22.1.2009 set aside the assessment order dated 18.2.2008 and remanded the matter to the assessing authority for re-examination. The assessee instead of approaching the assessing authority challenged the order of the appellate authority before the Value Added Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal vide order dated 15.3.2010 set aside the order dated 18.2.2008 passed by the assessing authority holding that the assessment of the dealer was barred by limitation prescribed in Section 11(3) of the Act.
(3.) Learned State counsel submitted that the Tribunal had erred in holding that the assessment order dated 18.2.2008 in respect of assessment year 2001-02 was barred by limitation whereas the Commissioner had extended the limitation on 7.1.2009 upto 31.3.2009 and in such circumstances, the assessment framed on 18.2.2008 for the year 2001-02 was within limitation. The matter, thus, required to be adjudicated on merits.;