M.R.SHARMA,J. - (1.) THE petitioner-firm is a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act ). The assessment of the firm was completed for the year 1967-68 on 27th October, 1969 and for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 on 28th April, 1970 and 7th October, 1970, respectively. The orders were passed by the Assessing Authority after examination of the accounts and verification of the returns and documents.
(2.) IN the year 1970-71, notices were sent to the petitioner-firm in form S. T. XIX by respondent No. 4 for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 for starting reassessment proceedings under Section 11-A of the Act. In the notices it was stated as under : Sales to the following unregistered dealers have been made and deductions as sales made to R. Ds. were claimed and allowed : 1. B. S. Arora, Amritsar. 2. Bhajan Lal and Bros. , Amritsar. 3. Jamna Dass Boa Dass, Amritsar. 4. Dharam Paul Sharma, Amritsar. 5. Munshi Lal and Co. , Amritsar. 6. Prem Singh Vasdev, Amritsar. On 2nd December, 1971, the Assessing Authority passed an order under Section 11-A of the Act reassessing the petitioner-firm and creating an additional liability for the year 1967-68 on the ground that the registration certificates of the firms mentioned in the preceding paragraph had been cancelled prior to the dates on which the sales were purported to have been made in their favour. The petitioner-firm challenged this order by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 541 of 1972 (Arjan Radio House v. Assessing Authority [1973] 31 S. T. C. 49), which came up for hearing before me in Chambers and was allowed on 6th October, 1972. In that case, I held that when the registration certificate of a dealer was cancelled, the particulars regarding the cancellation order had to be notified in the official Gazette as soon as possible as laid down under Rule 12 (2) of the Rules framed under the Act and failure to comply with this requirement could not entail penal consequences upon the selling dealer.
(3.) THE other point raised on behalf of the petitioner-firm that an assessment made could not be reopened on the ground that the C forms had not been signed by the other dealers by whom they purported to have been signed was negatived by me on the ground that the information entitling the Assessing Authority to frame reassessment included information on points of law as also on points of fact. Pursuant to the aforementioned order passed by me, the matter relating to the year 1967-68 was again taken up by the Assessing Authority and an order of reassessment was passed on 21st April, 1973.;