- (1.) This petition challenges notice dated 04.09.2006 (Annexure P-1) under Section 21(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short "the 1948 Act"), proposing to revise the order of assessment finalized on 20.03.2001.
(2.) Facts set out in the petition are that the petitioner is a Co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Punjab Co-Operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short "the 1961 Act") and is also registered as a dealer under the provisions of the 1948 Act. The petitioner is running a milk plant under the control of the Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producer's Federation Limited, Chandigarh. The Act provides for the levy of purchase tax on milk when purchased for the manufacture of any goods other than tax free goods. For the year ending 31.3.2000, assessment of the petitioner was completed on 20.03.2001 on the basis of return filed and the petitioner was allowed refund of Rs. 5191/-. The Act contains a provision for suo-moto revision under Section 21 of the 1948 Act, which reads as under: 21(1): The Commissioner may of his own motion call for the records of any proceedings which are pending before or have been disposed of by any authority subordinate to him, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such proceedings or order made therein and may pass such order in relation thereto as he may think fit. xx xx xx xx xx xx
(3.) In the provision for assessment i.e. Section 11 of the 1948 Act, period of three years from the last date for filing the return is prescribed for completing the assessment. It has been submitted in the petition that the period prescribed for completing the assessment was relevant for keeping the books of account and the petitioner was not required to preserve books of account thereafter. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur, 1963 14 STC 976. Further contention raised is that the said period should be considered to be relevant period for the exercise of suo-moto revisional jurisdiction and if power of revision is exercised after the said period, the same should be held to be without jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Mechfield Industries v. Commissioner of Taxes, Assam and Ors., wherein initiation of Revisional jurisdiction after expiry of eight years was quashed. Reliance is also placed on Single Bench judgment of this court in Gopal Oil Mills v. Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ludhaiana and Ors., 1984 57 STC 308 to the same effect which was affirmed by a Divisional Bench judgment of this Court in Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner v. Gopal Oil Mills and Ors., 1995 97 STC 428. Exercise of Revisional power after 13 years was quashed by this Court in Fine Surgical Dressing Manufacturing Co. v. State of Punjab and Anr.,;