INDIAN ALUMINIUM CABLES LTD. & ANR. versus EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER & ANR.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 716 · Decided: 23-09-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

716 
A 
INDIAN ALUMINIUM CABLES LTD. & ANR. 
\ ', 
EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER & ANR. 
September L:3, 1976 
B 
[H. R. KHANNA, N. L. UNTWAUA AND JASWANT S!XGH, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Pun;ab General Sales Tax Act (P1111j,,b Act 46 of 1948), s. 11 (2)-Notice 
1111dcr-Wiletlier should be issued within a particulnr period. 
The appellant is an inter-State dealer. 
In respect of all the eight •quarters of 
the years 1969-70 and 1970-71, the appellant filed returns in time. 
In respect 
of the four quarters of 1969-70 the Assessing Authority did not accept the returns 
and issued notices under s. 11(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. 1948, 
requiring the appellant to produce evidence in support of the returns. 
Since 
the question of the appellant's liability 10 pay central sales tax for an earlier 
assessment year (1962-63) was pending before the High Conrt. the matter was 
not pursued by the Assessing Authority ~end was kept pending. 
After the High 
Court gave its decision against the appellant, and while the matter was pending 
appeal in this Court, the Assessing Auth3rity took up the matter of assessment 
for the year 1969-70 by the issue of nolice in September 1975. The appellant 
thereupon filed writ petitions in the High Court to quash the proceedings. 
In 
respect of the four quarters of the year 1970·71 notices under s. 11(2) were 
issued. by the Assessing Authority on Jarnary 30, 1976, and the appellant filed 
writ petitions in the High Court for quashing those proceedings also. 
All the 
writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, in view of the decision of this Court in appeal. the 
appellant did not agitate the question of its tax liability under the Central Sales 
Tax Act. but contended that, (i) the Assessing Authority could not assess the 
tax payable by the appellant on the expiry of the period of 5 years from the 
end of each quarter-in relation to the year 1970-71 the same contention was 
raised even though notice under s. 11 (2) was within time apropns the last 
quarter; and (2) the notice under s. 11 (2) and assessment under s. 11 (3) had · 
to be completed within a reasonable time. 
Dismissing the appeals, 
HELD : (1) Under s. 10 of the Act read along with Rules framed there-
under, the return has to be filed by a dealer for each quarter by the last day 
of the following month of the quarter and admitted sales tax as per the return 
has also got to be deposited. 
Where a registered dealer has filed the return 
the Assessing Authority can accept the return as correct and pass the assessment 
order under s. 11 (I). If the Assessing Authority does not accept the return 
he may issue notice under s. 11 (2) asking the asscssee to pr_oduce evidence in 
support of the return. In such a case the, Assessing Authority shall hear the 
evidence produced by the dealer on th<: day specified in the notice issued under 
sub-s. (2). or adjourn the hearing to some other day and hear the evidence 
produced by the dealer on the adjourned day or days. or may require the dealer 
to produce furthet· evidence on specified points on the adjourned day, or days. 
The Assessing Authority should under!;. 11(3), on the day on which the hearing 
of the evidence is completed or 'as soon afterwa·rds as may be', assess the 
amount of tax due from the dealer, thnt is, pass the order of assessment 
[720 E-H] 
Section 11 ( 4) is attracted in a case where a dealer ha vine furnished a return 
fails to comply with the terms of a notice issued under s. 11 (1). 
In such a case, 
the Assessing Authority has to take some effective steps, such as issuance of a 
notice to the assessee, within 5 year~; of the expiry of the period COP.cerned. 
intimating to him that he is procecdhg to assess the tax due from the dealer 
to the best of his judgment. Under s. 11 (5), on failure of a dealer to furnish 
a return in respect of any period by the prescribed date the Assessing Authority, 
after giving the dealer a reasonable 3pportunity of being heard can. within 5 
\. 
_;.--·. 
\ 
• 
• 
• 
INDIAN ALUMINIUM V. E. & T. OFFICER 
717 
years after the expiry of the concerned pefiod proceed to assess to t~e best 
of his judgment the amount of tax, if any, d~e fr!Jm the dealer. Sub-sectlon (6) 
is attracted in the case ef a dealer who, being hable to pay tax under the Act, 
had failed to apply for registration. Similar steps as the ones under sub-s. (_5) 
are to be taken under sub-s. ( 6) within a period of 5 years after the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.