S.P.KURDUKAR, C.J. - (1.) LETTERS Patent Appeals Nos. 463 and 595 of 1984 are directed against the judgments and orders dated March 15, 1984 and March 22, 1984 respectively passed by the learned Single Judge. These two appeals are preferred by the State of Punjab challenging the legality and correctness of judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after getting necessary facts from them, we are of the opinion that since the issues involved in both these appeals are identical, although the judgment is not common, the same can be disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, we may refer to the facts in L. P. A. No. 463 of 1984.
(2.) IT is un-necessary to set out the facts in detail in as much as there is no dispute about most of the facts. The learned Single Judge in his judgments has very succintly set out the facts. The learned Single Judge also formulated the questions of law which arose in both the writ petitions. We heard the learned counsel for the parties on the issues raised by the learned Single Judge in his judgments. The answers to the questions formulated in Appeal No. 463 of 1984 squarely answer the controversy raised in Appeal No. 595 of 1984. There does not seem to be any dispute that the respondent- M/s Gopal Oil Mills, Samrala, was a registered firm and was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of oil seeds and manufacture of oil and its bye-rproducts. Being the registered dealer within the meaning of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short the Act) and also under the General Sales Tax Act, for the assessment year 1970-71, respondent had admittedly filed quarterly returns in Form ST-VIII disclosing a turn-over pertaining to its sales and accordingly paid sales-tax thereon. It is also admitted position that the respondent had not filed any return as regards the purchases made by it during the year 1970-71 in form ST-VIII-A of the Act and resultantly did not pay the tax thereon. It is in these circumstances that the assessment for the year 1970-71 on various purchases made by respondent was sought to be made in the year 1978. Some orders were passed by the authorities below and the last order which went against the respondent was passed by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Inspection), Ludhiana, on March 5,1981. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner with the aid of Section 11 (2) of the Act held that the respondent being the last purchaser was liable to pay tax under Section 5 (3) of the Act. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner appears to have exercised the power under Section 21 (1) of the Act. This order was sought to be challenged in a writ petition by the respondent and the learned Single Judge vide his judgment and order dated March 15, 1984 set-aside and held that the appellant can not take benefit of Section 11 (2) of the Act.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge has very appropriately formulated the points and held that the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner in exercise of his revisional powers under Section 21 (1) of the Act, cannot make an order of purchase tax after the expiry of five years period. The learned Single Judge opined that more appropriately the provisions of Section 11 (5) will be attracted and not of Section 11 (2) of the Act. It is in these circumstances that the learned Single Judge granted the desired relief to the respondent in its writ petition.;