- (1.) FIXWELL Pushin Cords Pvt. Limited, Gurgaon, has approached this Court through Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 8930 of 1988, 8863 of 1991, and Sales Tax Cases No. 18 of 1989 and 8 of 1992. The primary challenge in these cases is to the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Sales Tax Tribunal, Haryana. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) THE petitioner was registered under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on September 9, 1983. It is averred that till the end of 1985, its factory building was under construction and in January, 1986, the unit came into production. For the three quarters commencing from January, 1986 to September, 1986, the petitioner's advocate filed sales tax returns showing the gross turnover as "nil". On November 26, 1986, the officials of the sales tax authority visited the factory premises. Thereafter on November 28, 1986, the petitioner filed three separate returns in respect of three quarters, noticed above. It also paid the tax due on the gross turnover. On February 11, 1987, the Assessing Authority passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 66,320 under Section 48 of the Act in respect of the period January, 1986 to March 31, 1986. The petitioner's appeal, etc. , have been dismissed. It has filed Civil Writ Petition No. 8930 of 1988 against it. For the remaining two quarters, the order was passed by the Assessing Authority on July 4, 1987. A penalty of Rs. 4,48,000 was imposed. A copy of this order has been produced as annexure P-1 in Civil Writ Petition No. 8863 of 1991. Aggrieved of these orders, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner under Section 39 of the Act. The appeal was partly accepted. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner remanded the case to the Assessing Authority for fresh decision. Aggrieved by the order of remand, the petitioner approached the Sales Tax Tribunal for further relief. Vide order dated September 19, 1988 (annexure P-3) in C. W. P. No. 8930 of 1988, the Tribunal has held that imposition of the penalty against the petitioner under Section 48 of the Act was justified. As a result even the relief given by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner was declined by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal and the action of the respondents in imposing the penalty, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by the respondents by filing written statements in the two writ petitions. However, in the circumstances of the present case, it does not appear to be necessary to advert to statements of fact as made in the written statements.
(3.) MR. Jhingan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has, inter alia, contended that orders of imposition of the penalty against the petitioner were wholly unjustified and the provisions of Section 48 of the Act were not at all attracted. He has further submitted that the lawyer, who had filed the returns in respect of three quarters, had, in fact, not been authorised to sign the returns on behalf of the petitioner and consequently those returns could not form a basis to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner had deliberately concealed the gross turnover from the department. Mr. Jhingan has also contended that the Tribunal had erred in upholding the imposition of penalty while considering the appeal filed by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal could at best dismiss the appeal, but could not have made any adverse observations against the order passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, copy of which order has been produced as annexure P-2.;