IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 3107 of 2005
Date of Decision: July 3, 2009
Ballarpur Industries Limited
...Petitioner
Versus
Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Khanna and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. Kashmiri Lal Goyal, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab,
for the respondents.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the
respondents from framing the assessment under the provisions of the Punjab
General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) in respect of assessment
year 1990-91. According to the petitioner the period of limitation
prescribed under Section 11(4) of the Act for framing the assessment had
already expired.
On 25.2.2005, while issuing notice of motion, a Division Bench
of this Court also directed that the order, if any, passed by the Assessing
Authority would be subject to the final adjudication of the instant petition.
Subsequently, on 3.10.2005, while hearing the parties on the question of
grant of interim relief, liberty was granted to the Assessing Authority to
CWP No. 3107 of 2005 2
complete assessment for the relevant assessment year but the said order was
not to be given effect to without the leave of the Court.
At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has apprised
the Court that the Assessing Authority has already completed the
assessment and passed the assessment order but the same has not been given
effect to in terms of interim directions dated 3.10.2005 passed by this Court.
He has also disputed the factum of issuance of notices issued to the
petitioner in Form ST-XIV under Sections 11 and 14 of the Act before
finalisation of assessment order. According to the learned counsel all these
notices were fabricated to overcome the period of limitation. The aforesaid
fact is a disputed question of fact. Moreover, remedy of appeal has been
provided under Section 20(1) of the Act against the assessment order passed
by the Assessing Authority during the pendency of the instant petition.
Accordingly, we are of the view that the aforesaid question of fact could
more appropriately be determined by the Appellate Authority, especially
when appeal is provided and the remedy of appeal against the assessment
order has not been availed by the petitioner due to pendency of present
petition.
In view of above, the petitioner is relegated to the remedy of
appeal. If any appeal is filed by the petitioner then the petitioner may file an
application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by citing the reason
of pendency of this petition. If such an application is filed then the same
shall be considered sympathetically by the Appellate Authority.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
CWP No. 3107 of 2005 3
(JASWANT SINGH)
July 3, 2009 JUDGE
Pkapoor