MADAN LAL ARORA versus EXCISE &. TAXATION OFFICER, AMRITSAR

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 823 · Decided: 07-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
, , 1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
823 
• • 
ordinary grammatical construction of that expres-
sion." 
For the reasons already set out, in my view, the 
interpretation placed by Chagla, C. J. on the expres-
sion "arising out of such order" is the correct one. 
Appeal dismissed. 
MADAN LAL ARORA 
v. 
EXCISE &. TAXATION OFFICER, AMRITSAR 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR 
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
' • 
Sales Tax-Return furnished-Assessee called upon to produce 
evidence in support of return-Period of limitation for such demand 
from when to run-Punjab General Sales Tax Act, I948, (Punj. 
46 of r948), s. II, r. 20 . 
. Under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, a dealer had 
to furnish his return every quarter according to the Rules and 
• • 
was also required to furnish evidence in support of the return if 
called for, and if he failed to do so the assessing authority could 
proceed to make an assessment to the best of his judgment, but 
this power could be exercised "within three years after the ex-
piry of the period". 
Held, that three years within which tbe authority could 
proceed to make the best judgment assessment had to be com-
,~ 
f 
puled rom the end of such quarter in respect of which return 
had been filed. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 
Writ Petition No. 120 of 
1959. 
Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution 
of India for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
Bhagirath Das and B. P. Maheshwari, for the peti-
tioner. 
N. S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for the respondent. 
1961. 
April 7. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
z96r 
Com.missionilr of 
I11come-la~. 
Bombay 
v. 
Scindia Stea·m 
Navigation 
Co. Ltd. 
Venkatarama 
Aiyar, ]. 
. ' 
Apnl 7. 
824 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
i96i 
SARKAR, J.-The petitioner is a dealer registered 
M d -L-l A 
under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. 
He filed 
a an 
a 
rora 
, 
v. 
returns of hie. sale turnovers for the four quarters of 
Excise & Taxation the financial year ending on March 31, 1955, and like-
Officer, Amritsar wise, for the four quarters of the financial year ending 
on March 31, 1956. In respect of each year the Sales 
Sarkar J. 
Tax Assessing Officer served three successive notices 
on him on March 7, 1958, April 4, 1958, and August 
18, 1959, requiring him to attend with the documents 
and other evidence in support of his returns. In the 
last of the notices mentioned above it was stated that 
on failure to produce the documents and other evidence 
mentioned, the case would be decided "on best judg-
ment assessment basis". The petitioner did not comply 
with any of the notices, but after the receipt of the 
last notice he presented this petition under Art. 32 of 
the Constitution challenging the right of the authori-
ties to make a best judgment assessment. 
The question raised by the petitioner turns on s. 11 
of the Punjab General Sales Ta~ Act, relevant provi-
sions of which are set out below. 
S. 11. (1) If the Assessing Authority is satisfied 
without requiring the presence of registered dealer 
or the production by him of any evidence that the 
returns furnished in respect of any period are correct 
and complete, he shall assess the amount of tax due 
from the dealer on the basis of such returns. 
(2) If the Assessing Authority is not satisfied 
without requiring the presence of a registered dealer 
who furnished the returns or production of evidence 
that the returns furnished in respect of any period 
are correct and complete, he shall serve on such 
dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring 
him, on a date and at a place specified therein, 
either to attend in person or to produce or to cause 
to be produced any evidence on which such dealer 
may rely in support of such returns . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
(4) If a registered dealer, having furnished returns 
in respect of a period, fails to comply with the 
terms of a notice issued under sub-section (2), the 
I 
' 
1 S.C.R. StJPRtt:ME COUR1' R:gPoRrs. 
825 
,_. 
} 
) 
J 
,...,. l 
Assessing Authority shall within three years after 
I96r 
the expiry of such period, proceed to. assess to the 
-
best of his judgment the amount of the tax due Madan Lal Arora 
from the dealer. 
. 
Excise &v Taxation 
·The contention of .the petitioner is that at the Officer, Amdtsar 
date of the notice last mentioned the Sales Tax 
authoritie

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