- (1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been placed before us for decision in pursuance of the order of S. B. Capoor and R. S. Narula, JJ. of september 26, 1968. When this appeal came up for hearing before the learned judges, it was considered that the legal question arising in this appeal was the same as was referred by Sarkaria, J. on April 1, 1968, in C. W. 1232 of 1965. That is how this appeal has come before us for decision.
(2.) IN fact, the point of law that arises for decision in this appeal is not the same as arose in C. W. 1232 of 1965 as observed by the learned Single Judge in his judgment as under:-" i am not determining question whether there is any period of limitation prescribed for the Commissioner within which he can exercise his powers under S. 21. " the question of Taw that was referred in C. W. 1232 of 1965 to a Full Bench was "whether the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 21 (1) of the Punjab general Sales Tax Act, 1948, is subject to the period of limitation prescribed in section 11-A of the Act". The question of law that arises in this appeal is whether the proceedings for fresh assessment taken by the assessing authority in pursuance of the directions made by the Commissioner while disposing of a revision petition under Section 21 (1) of the Act setting aside the order of assessment and ordering the assessing authority to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law are governed by the period of limitation prescribed in Subsections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 11 or Section 11-A of the Punjab General Sales tax Act, 1948, hereinafter called' the Act. The learned Judge has taken the view that the proceedings taken for fresh assessment by the assessing authority in pursuance of the order of remand made by the Commissioner in exercise of revisional powers is governed by the period of limitation provided in Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 11 or Section 11-A of the Act. This view of the learned judge is well founded and finds support from, a judgment of their Lordships of the supreme Court in Jaipuria Brothers Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1905) 16 STC 494 = (AIR 1965 SC 1213 ). Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of that Act provides:- "the Revising Authority may in his discretion at any time suo motu or on the application of the Commissioner of Sales Tax or the person aggrieved, call for and examine the record of any order made by any appellate or Assessing Authority under this Act, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order and may pass such order as he thinks fit: provided that no such application shall be entertained in any case where an appeal lay against the order, but was not preferred. " This provision of law is analogous to Section 21 (1) of the Act which confers revisional powers on the Commissioner.
(3.) SECTION 21 of the U. P. Act provided as under;- "where the whole or any part of the turnover of a dealer has, for any reason, escaped assessment to tax in any year, the Assessing Authority may, at any time within three years from the expiry of such year, and after issuing notice to the dealer and making such enquiry as may be necessary, assess the tax payable on such turnover. ";