Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 68(2) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated 1.3.2013, Annexure A.1 passed by the VAT Tribunal, Punjab, (in short, "the Tribunal") for the assessment year 1998 -99, claiming following substantial questions of law: - - (i) Whether the learned VAT Tribunal was justified in applying the ratio of the judgment 'Emkay Industries v. State of Punjab : [2004] 24 PHT 183 (Punj. & Har.)', when the facts in that case and facts of the case under appeal were distinguishable? (ii) Whether the learned VAT Tribunal was not required to take into consideration the fact that the dealer (respondent in this case) and his counsel never objected to the notice dated 8.7.2003 and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority and continued to attend the proceedings and produced account books on the basis of which the final assessment order dated 22.8.2003 was passed? Briefly, the relevant facts as narrated in the appeal are that the respondent -assessee is running a sugar mill and is engaged in the manufacture of sugar and bye -products from sugarcane. Assessment for the year 1998 -99 was framed by the Assessing authority vide order dated 22.8.2003, Annexure A.3 creating an additional demand of Rs. 27,42,794/ -. Not satisfied with the order, the respondent assessee filed appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala (DETC) who vide order dated 27.5.2005, Annexure A.2 affirmed the order of the assessing authority. Still not satisfied, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with the plea that as per provisions of section 11(4) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (in short, "the 1948 Act"), the assessment was required to be completed within three years from the last date of filing of the last quarterly return of the relevant assessment year and thus the assessment for the year in question was required to be completed by 30.4.2002 whereas the assessment order had been passed on 22.8.2003 which is alleged to be barred by limitation. The Tribunal vide order dated 1.3.2013, Annexure A.1, relying on the judgment of this Court in Emkay Industries v. State of Punjab : [2004] 24 PHT 183 held that the assessment was barred by limitation and that the assessing authority did not have the jurisdiction to frame assessment. Consequently the appeal was allowed. Hence the present appeal by the revenue.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the assessment order which was passed on 22.8.2003 under Section 11 of the 1948 Act was within limitation.
(3.) IT was not disputed that Section 11 of the 1948 Act was amended w.e.f. 3.3.1998 by Ordinance 1 of 1998 and limitation of three years for completion of the assessment was provided therein. It was urged on behalf of the respondent -assessee that in such a situation, the assessment order could not be passed after 30.4.2002.;