SUKHDEV SINGH KANG, J. - (1.) DIVISIONAL Railway Manager (Mechanical), Ferozepur, was issued a certificate of registration to pay tax, with effect from May 21, 1976. Subsequently, a notice for determining the exact date for liability to pay tax was issued to the dealer. In response to that notice, the dealer appeared before the Assessing Authority and produced its accounts showing details of monthly sales for taxable goods. It was revealed that the registered dealer had made sales in excess of the permissible limit, with effect from 3rd September, 1974, but had not paid any tax thereon. Notice under section 11 (2) of the c ("the Act" for short) was issued. The Assessing Authority assessed the gross turnover of the dealer for the period 3rd October, 1974 to 31st March 1975 on best judgment assessment basis and 1st April, 1975 to 31st March, 1976 under section 11 (6) of the Act. On the basis of the record available the assessment was also framed for these periods. Aggrieved, the dealer filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner but without any success. The appeal was partly allowed and the penalty imposed was waived. However, the order of the assessment of tax was affirmed. Still dissatisfied, the dealer took up second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab. The appeal was rejected. On an application made under section 22 of the Act, the Tribunal referred the following question for our opinion : " Whether a dealer registered under the Act with effect from the date mentioned in the application under section 7 (2) could be assessed under section 11 (6) of the Act on subsequent information that he is liable to pay tax from a date earlier to such registration ?"
(2.) IT is evident from the provisions of section 11 of the Act that the dealer was liable to pay tax under the Act irrespective of the fact as to whether he has got himself registered. The liability arose under section 4 (1) of the Act which was the charging section and it was not conditional on the registered dealer. Precisely, this very view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in petition dismissed, wherein it had been observed : " Under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder prior to their amendments in 1965, it could not be said that merely because the application for the grant of the registration certificate remained pending for a long period, a 'dealer', who became a 'registered dealer' subsequently and thereafter filed a return under section 11 (1) of the Act, was not liable to pay tax for the intervening period during which the application for registration remained pending. The liability of the dealer (the assessee) for payment of tax was not dependent on the issue of the registration certificate and it arose under section 4 (1) as soon as his gross turnover exceeded the limit fixed. If he filed a return at a time when he was a registered dealer, he would be assessed to tax under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 11 of the Act. " The dicta of the above decision is a complete answer to the question referred. In fact, the question did not require any reference because the decision mentioned above had been rendered on July 27, 1973, whereas the question was referred on 24th November, 1982. Be that as it may, we answer the question in the affirmative. Reference answered in the affirmative. .;