IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
G.S.T.R. No. 16 of 1998
DATE OF DECISION: January 13, 2009
M/s Food Corporation of India
...Applicant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA
Present: Mr. K.L. Goyal, Advocate,
for the applicant.
Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
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 reference under Section 22 of the Punjab
General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) has arisen out of
the order dated 27.3.1996 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab,
Chandigarh (for brevty, ‘the Tribunal) in Revision No. 7 of 1994-95,
in respect of the assessment year 1968-69. The Tribunal while
accepting the application of the Food Corporation of India has
referred various questions of law for opinion of this Court while
exercising power under Section 22(1) of the Act. However, at the
G.S.T.R. No. 16 of 1998 2
hearing, Mr. K.L. Goyal, learned counsel for the Food Corporation of
India has not pressed any other question except question no. 2, which
reads thus:-
“(ii) Whether the power exercised by the Revisional
Authority to suo motu re-open an assessment
which has long been finalised and issuing a notice
after 14 years is unreasonable, arbitrary and
beyond the scope of the Act and the Rules and is
liable to be quashed?”
Brief facts of the case are that the Applicant Food
Corporation of India is a registered dealer under the Sales Tax Law
and engaged in the procurement of food grains and sale thereof. The
applicant filed return for the assessment year 1968-69 with its gross
turn over at Rs. 33,11,51,982/-. On 13.12.1972, the Assessing
Authority, Ropar, framed the assessment without levying tax on the
purchases of rice from the Food and Supplies Controller, Ropar under
Rice Procurement Levy Order. The Assistant Excise and Taxation
Commissioner, Ropar-cum-Revisional Authority, suo motu took up
the case and subjected the aforementioned purchases to tax and raised
additional demand of Rs. 19,347/-, vide its order dated 28.6.1994.
Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred a revision petition under
Section 21(3) of the Act before the Tribunal, which was rejected vide
order dated 27.3.1996, holding that the purchase tax had been
correctly and legally initiated under Section 21(1) of the Act.
Thereafter, on the basis of an application filed by the applicant under
Section 22 of the Act, the Tribunal has sent the instant reference for
opinion of this Court.
G.S.T.R. No. 16 of 1998 3
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at a
considerable length and perusing the record with their able assistance
we are of the considered view that on the aforesaid question the
matter is squarely covered in favour of the applicant by the judgment
of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v.
Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd., (2007)
11 SCC 363, wherein it has been held that the revisional jurisdiction
cannot be exercised after a period of five years. As the matter is
covered by the aforesaid judgment, no detailed discussion would be
necessary. Accordingly, the question is answered in favour of the
applicant and the order of the Tribunal dated 27.3.1996 is quashed as
the proceedings in the instant case have been opened after 21 years.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(H.S. BHALLA)
January 13, 2009 JUDGE
Pkapoor