{"id":157769,"date":"1967-02-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-02-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967"},"modified":"2016-08-23T08:00:29","modified_gmt":"2016-08-23T02:30:29","slug":"state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967","title":{"rendered":"State Of Punjab &amp; Ors vs M\/S. Tara Chand Lajpat Rai on 28 February, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Punjab &amp; Ors vs M\/S. Tara Chand Lajpat Rai on 28 February, 1967<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1408, \t\t  1967 SCR  (3)\t 10<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Shelat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Shelat, J.M.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S.  TARA CHAND LAJPAT RAI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n28\/02\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nMITTER, G.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1408\t\t  1967 SCR  (3)\t 10\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1970 SC 311\t (3)\n R\t    1977 SC 540\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\nPunjab General Sales Tax Act (46 of 1948), s. 11(2) and (4)-\nReturn\t by  assessee-Notice  under  s.\t 11(2)\twithin\t the\nprescribed period--Compliance with notice by  assessee-Order\nby  Assessing Authority on the basis of best  judgment-Order\npassed after prescribed period-Order, if falls tinder s.  11\n(4)--Order, if barred by limitation.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent firm, was a registered dealer and  furnished\nquarterly  returns of its turnover as required by the  Rules\nunder the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.  The Assessing\nAuthority  was not satisfied with the returns and  issued  a\nnotice, under s. 11(2) of the Act asking the firm to produce\nevidence  to establish that the returns were full and  corn-\nplete.\tThe notice was served on the firm before the  expiry\nof three years from the respective dates for furnishing\t the\nreturns.  A partner of the firm complied with the notice  by\nappearing and producing its account books.  The officer held\nan  enquiry,  and  passed  an  order  stating  that  he\t was\nassessing  the firm to the best of his judgment.  The  order\nwas  passed after the expiry of three years from  the  dates\nwhen  the  quarterly  returns had to  be  filed.   The\tfirm\nchallenged  its\t validity by a writ petition, and  the\tHigh\nCourt  hold that the order fell -Linder s. 11(4) of the\t Act\nand that it was barred by limitation.\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD  : The impugned order could not be said to be under  s.\n11(4)  ,even  though it was stated that the  assessment\t was\nmade  to  the best of the officer's jud-ment,  because,\t the\ncondition   precedent  under  that  subsection\tis  that   a\nregistered  dealer who has furnished returns should fail  to\ncomply\twith the terms of the notice issued under s.  11(2).\nBut assuming it was made under s. 11(4), the order could not\nbe  attacked on the ground of its being\t beyond\t limitation.\nUnder  s. 11(4), if a re. gistered dealer  having  furnished\nreturns\t in  respect of a period, fails to comply  with\t the\nterms  of a notice under s. 11(2), the\tAssessing  Authority\nshall,\twithin three years after the expiry of such  period,\nproceed\t to assess, to the best of his judgment, the  amount\nof  tax due from the dealer.  \"Such period\"., refers to\t the\nperiod mentioned earlier in the sub-section, that is, in the\npresent\t case, to the quarters in respect of which the\tfirm\nhad to submit returns.\tThe assessment proceedings commence,\nin the case of a registered dealer, either when be furnishes\na  return or when a notice is issued to him under s.  11(2),\nand would be pending from the time they ,ire initiated until\nthey  are  terminated  by  a  final  order  of\t assessment.\nTherefore,  if\tsuch  proceedings  were\t taken\twithin\t the\nprescribed time, though the assessment was made final subse-\nquently,  even after the expiry of the prescribed  time,  no\nquestion of limitation would arise. [14 H; 15 A, F, G; 17 G;\n18 E-F]\n<a href=\"\/doc\/659567\/\">Madan  Lal Arora v. Excise and Taxation\t Officer,  Amritsar,<\/a>\n[1962] 1 S.C.R., 823 and <a href=\"\/doc\/1168631\/\">Ghanshyam Das v. Regional Assistant\nCommissioner  of  Sales Tax, Nagpur,<\/a> [1964]  4\tS.C.R.\t436,\nfollowed.\n\t\t\t     A\n11\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1080  of<br \/>\n1965.\n<\/p>\n<p>Dipak\tDutta  Chaudhuri  and  R.  N.  Sachthey,   for\t the<br \/>\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>C. D. Garg, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nShelat, J. This appeal by certificate granted by the  Punjab<br \/>\nHigh Court raises the following question :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Where   the  sales  tax\tauthority   is\t not<br \/>\n\t      satisfied\t  with\tthe  returns  filed   by   a<br \/>\n\t      registered dealer and issues a notice under s.<br \/>\n\t      11  (2) of the Punjab General Sales  Tax\tAct,<br \/>\n\t      1948 before the expiry of three years from the<br \/>\n\t      termination  of  the  period  for\t  furnishing<br \/>\n\t      returns  but  finalises the  assessment  order<br \/>\n\t      after  three  years from the  aforesaid  date,<br \/>\n\t      whether  such an assessment order can be\tsaid<br \/>\n\t      to  be  time barred  and,\t therefore,  without<br \/>\n\t      jurisdiction&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>A  few facts for understanding this question may  first\t be.<br \/>\nstated.\t  The  respondent is a partnership  firm  registered<br \/>\nunder  the  Act\t and was at the material  time\tcarrying  on<br \/>\nbusiness  in  vegetable ghee, sugar and\t other\tcommodities.<br \/>\nThe assessment year in question commenced from April 1, 1955<br \/>\nand.  ended  on March 31, 1956.\t The dealer  furnished\tfour<br \/>\nquarterly returns as required by the Rules framed under\t the<br \/>\nAct. viz,., for the period April to June, 1954 on October 1,<br \/>\n1954; July to September, 1954 on December 16, 1954;  October<br \/>\nto  December,  1954  on March 12, 1955 and  for\t January  to<br \/>\nMarch, 1955 on June 16, 1956.  Though these returns were not<br \/>\nfiled within 30 days after expiry of each of the quarters as<br \/>\nrequired  by  the  Rules,  no objection\t was  taken  by\t the<br \/>\nAssessing  Authority.  The firm deposited three sums at\t the<br \/>\ntime  of filing the returns aggregating to  Rs.\t 10,649-4-0.<br \/>\nSubsequently,  it  paid a further sum of Rs. 14,477  on\t the<br \/>\nbasis of those returns.\n<\/p>\n<p>Not  satisfied with these returns, the\tAssessing  Authority<br \/>\nissued a notice under S. 1 1 (2) in form S.T. XIV which is a<br \/>\ncomprehensive  form and which admittedly was served  on\t the<br \/>\ndealer on January 11, 1957, i.e.. before three years expired<br \/>\nfrom  each  of the respective dates for filing of  the\tsaid<br \/>\nreturns.   This\t is clear from the fact that  the  date\t for<br \/>\nfiling the first return would be July 30, 1954 and the\tdate<br \/>\nfor filing the last return would be April 30, 1955.  On July<br \/>\n5,  1960,  the Assessing Authority examined  Tara  Chand,  a<br \/>\npartner in the firm but did not finalise the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">12<\/span><br \/>\nassessment  order on that day as he wanted to  make  further<br \/>\nenquiries  and passed the assessment order impugned in\tthis<br \/>\nappeal\t on  August  11,  1960.\t  The  Assessing   Authority<br \/>\ndisbelieved  the accounts produced by Tara Chand  and  added<br \/>\nsales  of  Rs. 4,00,000 in the gross turnover shown  in\t the<br \/>\nreturns\t and  assessed\tthe  firm on  the  turnover  of\t Rs.<br \/>\n16,92,148-1-0  to  a tax of Rs.\t 33,127-1-6.   After  giving<br \/>\ncredit\tof  the said two sums deposited by  the\t dealer\t the<br \/>\nbalance of Rs. 8,000 and odd remained payable by the firm.<br \/>\nThe firm filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging<br \/>\nthe  validity of the assessment order on the ground that  as<br \/>\nit  was made after three years from the dates when the\tsaid<br \/>\nreturns\t had to be furnished, it was  without  jurisdiction.<br \/>\nThe  department on the other hand urged (1) that  the  order<br \/>\nwas  made under S. 11 (3) which provided no  limitation\t and<br \/>\n(2)  that assuming that the order was passed under S.  11(4)<br \/>\nor S. 11(5) proceedings in respect thereof having  commenced<br \/>\non  the issuance of the said notice dated January  11,\t1957<br \/>\nwhich  was within time, no question of the order being\ttime<br \/>\nbarred would arise.  These were the only contentions  raised<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  High Court and as no contention  regarding\t the<br \/>\nmerits of the order was raised, the High Court did not enter<br \/>\ninto that question.  We need not also go into the merits  of<br \/>\nthe  assessment\t and  we will  consider\t only  the  question<br \/>\nwhether\t the  order was invalid on the ground taken  by\t the<br \/>\ndealer\tin  the High Court.  The High  Court  following\t its<br \/>\nearlier\t decision in Mis.  Rameshwar Lai Sarup Chand v.\t The<br \/>\nExcise\tand Taxation Officer(1), held that the order was  an<br \/>\nassessment on best judgment basis under S. 11 (4) and as  it<br \/>\nwas made after three years after the close of the assessment<br \/>\nyear it was without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>For  the  reasons  which we shall  presently  set  out,\t the<br \/>\nquestion  whether the assessment order was passed  under  s.<br \/>\n11(3)  or  s. 11 (4) or (5) does not need any answer  as  it<br \/>\nmakes no difference so far as this case is concerned whether<br \/>\nit  was made under one or the other  sub-section.   However,<br \/>\nthe mere fact that the Assessing Authority mentioned that he<br \/>\nmade  the  order  on the best  judgement.  basis  cannot  be<br \/>\nconclusive,  for, by merely calling it as the best  judgment<br \/>\nassessment, the order does not become one.<br \/>\nSection 10 of the Act provides that the tax payable shall be<br \/>\npaid  in  the  manner  thereinafter  provided  and  at\tsuch<br \/>\nintervals  as  may  be prescribed.  Rule 20  of\t the  Punjab<br \/>\nGeneral Sales Tax Rules, 1949 provides that every registered<br \/>\ndealer, other than those referred to in rules 17, 18 and  19<br \/>\n(with  whom  we are not presently concerned)  shall  furnish<br \/>\nreturns\t quarterly  within 30 days from the expiry  of\teach<br \/>\nquarter.   Rule\t 25  provides that  all\t returns  which\t are<br \/>\nrequired to be furnished under these rules,<br \/>\n(1) [1963] P.L.R. 768.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">13<\/span><\/p>\n<p>shall  be signed by the registered dealer or his  agent\t and<br \/>\nshall  be  sent\t to  the  appropriate  Assessing   Authority<br \/>\ntogether  with the Treasury or the Bank receipt as proof  of<br \/>\nthe payment of the tax due.  Rule 40 provides that a  dealer<br \/>\nand  his partner or partners shall be jointly and  severally<br \/>\nresponsible  for payment of the tax, and that  every  dealer<br \/>\nliable to pay the tax shall pay it quarterly unless directed<br \/>\notherwise by the appropriate Assessing Authority.   Sub-rule<br \/>\n(3) provides that the tax due for any quarter shall be\tpaid<br \/>\nbefore\tfurnishing  the return for that\t quarter.   Rule  32<br \/>\nprovides  that every assessment order shall be\trecorded  in<br \/>\nwriting\t and, where the Assessing Authority  determines\t the<br \/>\nturnover  of a dealer at a figure different from that  shown<br \/>\nin the return submitted under the provisions of these rules,<br \/>\nthe  order shall state briefly the reasons therefore.\tRule<br \/>\n33  provides  that  when  it  appears  to  the\t appropriate<br \/>\nAssessing  Authority to be necessary to make  an  assessment<br \/>\nunder s. 1 1 in respect of a dealer, he shall serve a notice<br \/>\nin form S.T. XIV on him calling upon him to produce books of<br \/>\naccounts  and other documents and stating the period or\t the<br \/>\nreturn\tperiod or periods in respect of which assessment  is<br \/>\nproposed.   He\tshall fix a date ordinarily  not  less\tthan<br \/>\nafter  10 days from the date of the notice  for\t considering<br \/>\nany  objection which  the dealer may prefer.  Section  11(1)<br \/>\nprovides  that\tif  the\t Assessing  Authority  is  satisfied<br \/>\nwithout\t requiring the presence of the registered dealer  or<br \/>\nthe  production\t by  him of any evidence  that\tthe  returns<br \/>\nfurnished in respect of any period are correct and complete,<br \/>\nhe shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the<br \/>\nbasis of such returns.\tSub-section (2) provides that if the<br \/>\nAssessing  Authority is not satisfied without requiring\t the<br \/>\npresence of the registered dealer who furnished the  returns<br \/>\nor  production\tof evidence that the  returns  furnished  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  any period are correct or\tcomplete,  he  shall<br \/>\nserve  on  such\t dealer a notice in  the  prescribed  manner<br \/>\nrequiring  him at a date and at place  specified  thereunder<br \/>\neither\tto attend in person or to produce or to cause to  be<br \/>\nproduced  any  evidence\t on which such dealer  may  rely  in<br \/>\nsupport\t of such returns.  Sub-section (3) provides that  on<br \/>\nthe day specified in the notice or as soon afterwards as may<br \/>\nbe,  the  Assessing  Authority\tshall,\tafter  hearing\tsuch<br \/>\nevidence as the Assessing Authority may require on specified<br \/>\npoints\tassess the amount of tax due from the dealer.\tSub-<br \/>\nsection\t (4)  provides that if a  registered  dealer  having<br \/>\nfurnished  returns in respect of a period, fails  to  comply<br \/>\nwith the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (2), the<br \/>\nAssessing  Authority  shall  within three  years  after\t the<br \/>\nexpiry of such period, proceed to assess to the best of\t his<br \/>\njudgment  the amount of the tax due from the  dealer.\tSub-<br \/>\nsection\t (5) provides that if a registered dealer  does\t not<br \/>\nfurnish\t returns in respect of any period by the  prescribed<br \/>\ndate, the Assessing Authority shall within three years after<br \/>\nthe  expiry  of\t such  period, after  giving  the  dealer  a<br \/>\nreasonable opportunity of being heard,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">14<\/span><br \/>\nproceed\t to  assess to the best of his judgement  amount  of<br \/>\ntax,  if  any, due from the dealer.  Sub-section  (6)  deals<br \/>\nwith  a\t case  where  a\t dealer\t has  failed  to  apply\t for<br \/>\nregistration,  in  which  case the  Assessing  Authority  is<br \/>\nempowered  within  the prescribed period to  assess  such  a<br \/>\ndealer\tto the best of his judgment.  Since the firm in\t the<br \/>\ninstant\t case  was duly registered, the question  of  appli-<br \/>\ncation of sub-section (6) does not arise.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      Section 11 envisages the following cases\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (a)   Where the dealer duly files returns\t and<br \/>\n\t      the  Authority is satisfied with such  returns<br \/>\n\t      and accepts them and formally passes an  order<br \/>\n\t      of assessment which means no more than that he<br \/>\n\t      appropriates  the\t amount\t deposited  by\t the<br \/>\n\t      dealer towards the tax.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (b)   Where  the\tAuthority is  not  Satisfied<br \/>\n\t      with the returns, and issues a notice  calling<br \/>\n\t      upon the dealer to appear and produce evidence<br \/>\n\t      in support of the returns, the Authority holds<br \/>\n\t      an enquiry under subsection (3) and then makes<br \/>\n\t      an order of assessment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (c)   Where   the\t registered  dealer   having<br \/>\n\t      furnished\t returns  fails to comply  with\t the<br \/>\n\t      terms  of the notice issued under\t sub-section<br \/>\n\t      (2)  the\tAssessing  Authority  is   empowered<br \/>\n\t      within  three  years after the expiry  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      period  in  respect of which the\treturns\t are<br \/>\n\t      filed to proceed to assess to the best of\t his<br \/>\n\t      judgment the tax due from the dealer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (d)   Where  the registered dealer has  failed<br \/>\n\t      to furnish returns in respect of any period by<br \/>\n\t      the  prescribed date, the Assessing  Authority<br \/>\n\t      is  empowered  to assess to the  best  of\t his<br \/>\n\t      judgment\twithin three years after the  expiry<br \/>\n\t      of the period in respect of which the  returns<br \/>\n\t      have not been filed, and\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      (e)   Where the dealer has failed to apply for<br \/>\n\t      registration  in\trespect of  the\t period\t for<br \/>\n\t      which  he is liable to pay tax, the  Assessing<br \/>\n\t      Authority\t is  empowered\twithin\tthree  years<br \/>\n\t\t\t    after  the expiry of such period to as<br \/>\nsess  him<br \/>\n\t      to the best of his judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sub-sections  (4),  (5)\t and (6)  lay  down  the  conditions<br \/>\nprecedent  which must be satisfied before the power to\tmake<br \/>\nan assessment to the best of his judgment can be  exercised.<br \/>\nUnder  sub-section  (4)\t the condition is  that\t though\t the<br \/>\nregistered  dealer has furnished returns he fails to  comply<br \/>\nwith  the terms of the notice issued under sub-section\t(2).<br \/>\nUnder  sub-section (5) the condition is that the  registered<br \/>\ndealer\thas failed &#8216;to furnish returns and under  subsection<br \/>\n(6) the condition is that the dealer has failed to apply<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">15<\/span><br \/>\nfor  registration.   Prima facie, none of  these  conditions<br \/>\nexisted\t in  the  present  case\t and  therefore\t though\t the<br \/>\nAssessing Authority states that he had to assess the firm to<br \/>\nthe best of his judgment, the impugned order cannot be\tsaid<br \/>\nto  be\teither under sub-section (4) or sub-section  (5)  or<br \/>\nsub-section  (6).   But\t as  we\t have  stated  earlier\tthis<br \/>\nquestion need not be -One into in the present case and we do<br \/>\nnot,  therefore,  have to decide whether the order  was\t one<br \/>\nunder subsection (3) or sub-sectioa (4) or sub-section (5).<br \/>\nThe question that falls for determination is whether it\t was<br \/>\none  under  sub-section (3) or sub-section (4),\t is  it\t one<br \/>\nwhich can be said to be time barred?  So far as\t sub-section<br \/>\n(4) is concerned the question as to when an assessment order<br \/>\nthereunder  becomes  bar-red  arose in <a href=\"\/doc\/659567\/\">Madan  Lal  Arora  v.<br \/>\nExcise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar<\/a>(1).  The petitioner, a<br \/>\nregistered  dealer, filed his returns for the four  quarters<br \/>\nof  the\t financial  year  ending  on  March  31,  1955,\t and<br \/>\nlikewise, for the four quarters of the financial year ending<br \/>\non  March 31, 1956.  In respect of each year the  Sales\t Tax<br \/>\nAssessing  Authority served three successive notices on\t him<br \/>\non  March  7,  1958,  April 4, 1958  and  August  18,  1959,<br \/>\nrequiring  him\tto  attend  with  the  documents  and  other<br \/>\nevidence  in support of his returns.  It was, however,\tonly<br \/>\nin  the\t last  of the said notices that he  stated  that  on<br \/>\nfailure\t  to  produce  the  documents  and  other   evidence<br \/>\nmentioned  therein,  the  case would  be  decided  on  &#8220;best<br \/>\njudgment  assessment basis&#8221;.  The petitioner did not  comply<br \/>\nwith any of the notices, but on receiving the last notice he<br \/>\nfiled a writ petition in this Court challenging the right of<br \/>\nthe Authority to make the best judgment assessment.  Sarkar,<br \/>\nJ.  (as\t he then was) who spoke for the\t Court,\t posing\t the<br \/>\nquestion as how to compute the three years mentioned in sub-<br \/>\nsection\t (4) observed : &#8216;The sub-section says &#8220;within  three<br \/>\nyears  after the expiry of such period&#8221; So the\tthree  years<br \/>\nhave to be counted from the expiry of the period  mentioned.<br \/>\nWhat then is that period ?  The period referred,  therefore,<br \/>\nis the period mentioned earlier in the subsection, and\tthat<br \/>\nis the period in respect of which returns had been furnished<br \/>\nby  the dealer&#8217;.  After considering s. 11(1) and Rule 20  of<br \/>\nthe  Rules,  he\t further observed :  &#8216;It  would,  therefore,<br \/>\nappear that when sub-section (4) of s. 11 talks of  &#8220;returns<br \/>\nin  respect  of a period&#8221; that refers in the  case  of\tthe,<br \/>\npetitioner to the quarters in respect of which he  submitted<br \/>\nthe  returns.\tWe then come to this that  the\tthree  years<br \/>\nwithin\twhich the authority could proceed to make  the\tbest<br \/>\njudgment  assessment had to be counted from the end of\teach<br \/>\nquarter\t in respect of which returns had been  filed&#8217;.\t The<br \/>\nCourt held that the last of the quarters in respect of which<br \/>\nthe  petitioner filed his returns having ended on March\t 31,<br \/>\n1956 the Assessing Authority could not proceed<br \/>\n(1)  (1962] 1 S.C.R. 823.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">16<\/span><\/p>\n<p>to  make  the best judgment assessment in  respect  of\tthat<br \/>\nquarter\t after March 31, 1959.\tIn the case of\tthe  earlier<br \/>\nquarters  the  three years had expired even  prior  to\tthat<br \/>\ndate.\tThere was no dispute that the Assessing Officer\t had<br \/>\nnot  proceeded to make any assessment on the  petitioner  at<br \/>\nthe date of any of the notices.\t The notices given on August<br \/>\n18,  1959  that best judgment assessment would\tbe  made  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  the quarters constituting the  financial  years<br \/>\n1955  and 1956 the last of which expired on March 31,  1956,<br \/>\nwere  futile as no such assessment could be made in  respect<br \/>\nof  any of the quarters after March 31, 1959.  The  question<br \/>\nas  to\tthe  effect  of the  two  earlier  notices  was\t not<br \/>\ncanvassed.  What this decision laid down was that the notice<br \/>\ndated August 18, 1959 under which the authority proposed  to<br \/>\nproceed\t under s. II (4) having been served after expiry  of<br \/>\nthree years from the respective dates when the said  returns<br \/>\nhad to be furnished, the notice was futile and the authority<br \/>\nnot having proceeded to assess within time any action  taken<br \/>\nby him would be without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  question  as to the legal effect of such a\t notice\t was<br \/>\nconsidered   in\t  <a href=\"\/doc\/1168631\/\">Ghanshyam  Das   v.\tRegional   Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner of Sales Tax, Nagpur<\/a>(1).  The points which fell<br \/>\nfor determination there were : (1) when can a proceeding  be<br \/>\nsaid  to  commence  and (2) if a  proceeding  has  commenced<br \/>\nwithin the prescribed period but is pending when such period<br \/>\nexpires\t and an order is finalised thereafter, whether\tsuch<br \/>\nan order is invalid on the ground of its being\ttime-barred.<br \/>\nTile appellant there was a registered dealer.  For the\tyear<br \/>\n1949-50\t he  submitted only one return for one\tquarter\t and<br \/>\ndefaulted  in respect of the other quarters.  A\t notice\t was<br \/>\nserved on him on August 13, 1954 under s. 11 (1) and (2)  of<br \/>\nthe  C.P.  and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947 in respect  of\t the<br \/>\nturnover  of  the  firm for the said  period  He  filed\t the<br \/>\nreturns\t subsequently  but contended  that  the\t proceedings<br \/>\nbefore\tthe Sales Tax Commissioner were barred by time.\t  He<br \/>\nthen filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the<br \/>\nsaid  proceedings.   For the year 1950-51, he had  filed  no<br \/>\nreturns\t at all and was served with a notice on October\t 15,<br \/>\n1954  under  s. 11 (4) of the Act.  That notice\t was  within<br \/>\nthree  years  from October 16, 1951 which  fell\t within\t the<br \/>\nfourth\tquarter\t of  the year in question.   He\t also  filed<br \/>\nanother\t writ  petition for a similar relief in\t respect  of<br \/>\nthat year.  The contention was that whatever may be said  in<br \/>\nthe  case  of  an  unregistered dealer, in  the\t case  of  a<br \/>\nregistered dealer, the proceedings commence from the date of<br \/>\nthe registration certificate within which he has a statutory<br \/>\nobligation  to\tfurnish his returns.  This Court  held\tthat<br \/>\nassessment  proceedings\t under the Act must be\theld  to  be<br \/>\npending\t from  the time they are initiated  until  they\t are<br \/>\nterminated by a final order of assess-\n<\/p>\n<p>(1)  [1964] 4 S.C.R.436.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">17<\/span><\/p>\n<p>ment.\tIt was then stated that in the case of a  registered<br \/>\ndealer\tthere  would  be four variations in  the  matter  of<br \/>\nassessment of his turnover : (1) he submits a return by\t the<br \/>\ndate  prescribed and pays the tax due in terms of  the\tsaid<br \/>\nreturn,\t the  Commissioner accepts the\tcorrectness  of\t the<br \/>\nreturn and appropriates the amount paid towards the tax\t due<br \/>\nfor  the period covered by the return; (2) the\tCommissioner<br \/>\nis  not\t satisfied with the correctness of  the\t return,  he<br \/>\nissues\ta  notice  to  him under s. 11\t(2),  but  does\t not<br \/>\nfinalise the assessment; (3) the registered dealer does\t not<br \/>\nsubmit\ta return, the Commissioner issues a notice under  s.<br \/>\n10(3)  and  s.\tII (4) of the Act, and\t(4)  the  registered<br \/>\ndealer\tdoes  not submit any return for any period  and\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner issues a notice to him beyond three years.\t The<br \/>\nCourt  held  that  in the case of a  registered\t dealer\t the<br \/>\nproceedings  before the Commissioner start factually when  a<br \/>\nreturn\tis  made or when a notice is issued  to\t him  either<br \/>\nunder  s.  10(3) or under s. 11(2) of the  Act.\t  Since\t the<br \/>\nproceedings  commenced\tafter the return was  submitted\t and<br \/>\ncontinued  till\t a  final order of assessment  was  made  in<br \/>\nregard\tto the return, the Tribunal had no  jurisdiction  to<br \/>\nissue a notice under s. 1 1 -A with respect to the  quarters<br \/>\nother than that covered by the return made by the appellant.<br \/>\nAs regards the second case it held that the Commissioner had<br \/>\njurisdiction to assess the turnover in respect of the entire<br \/>\nfourth\tquarter.  At page 450, the Court observed that in  a<br \/>\ncase where a return has been made, but the Commissioner\t has<br \/>\nnot  accepted  it and has issued a notice for  enquiry,\t the<br \/>\nassessment  proceedings\t would\tbe pending  till  the  final<br \/>\nassessment is made.  Even in a case where no return has been<br \/>\nmade, but the Commissioner initiates proceedings by  issuing<br \/>\nthe  notice  either under s. 10(3) or under  s.\t 11(4),\t the<br \/>\nproceedings  would be pending till the final  assessment  is<br \/>\nmade.\t But  where  no\t return\t has  been  made   and\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner  has  not issued any notice under the  Act,  it<br \/>\ncannot\tbe held that any proceedings are pending before\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner.\tIn  the\t case of  a  registered\t dealer\t the<br \/>\nproceedings  before the Commissioner start factually when  a<br \/>\nreturn\tis  made or a notice is issued and  no\tquestion  of<br \/>\nlimitation  would  arise where such  proceedings  are  taken<br \/>\nbefore\tthe  expiry  of\t the  prescribed  period  though  an<br \/>\nassessment  order  is  finalised after the  expiry  of\tsuch<br \/>\nperiod.\t This decision is, therefore, a clear authority\t for<br \/>\nthe proposition that assessment proceedings commence in\t the<br \/>\ncase  of  a registered dealer either taken  he\tfurnishes  a<br \/>\nreturn\tor when a notice is issued to him under s.11 (2)  of<br \/>\nthe  present  Act,  and that if such  proceeding  are  taken<br \/>\nwithin\t the  prescribed  time\tthough\tthe  assessment\t  is<br \/>\nfinalised   subsequently  even\tafter  the  expiry  of\t the<br \/>\nprescribed period, no question of limitation would arise.<br \/>\nIn  the instant case the dealer filed returns.\tThough\tthey<br \/>\nwere led after the expiry of 30 days from the relevant date,<br \/>\nthey were<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">18<\/span><br \/>\nnot rejected by the department on that ground.\tIn fact\t the<br \/>\nnotice dated January 11, 1957 issued under s. 11 (2) was  on<br \/>\nthe  footing  that  returns were filed,\t but  the  Assessing<br \/>\nAuthority  was not satisfied with them and desired  evidence<br \/>\nto establish that the returns were full and complete.  It is<br \/>\nalso an admitted fact that the dealer appeared and  produced<br \/>\nbooks of accounts in answer to the said notice and thereupon<br \/>\nthe  Officer held an enquiry.  The notice dated January\t 11,<br \/>\n1957  was within time though the assessment order  was\tmade<br \/>\nmuch  after  the expiry of three years from  the  respective<br \/>\ndates  when  the  returns  had to  be  filed.\tBut  on\t the<br \/>\nauthority   of\tGhanshyam  Das&#8217;s  case(1),  the\t  assessment<br \/>\nproceedings commenced either when the respondent firm  filed<br \/>\nthe  returns  or  in any event from the\t date  of  the\tsaid<br \/>\nnotice.\t Both the events, therefore, were within  prescribed<br \/>\ntime.\n<\/p>\n<p>Reliance,  however, was placed on two decisions of the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  of Punjab: M\/s.\tRameshwar Lal Sarup Chand v.  Excise<br \/>\nand  Taxation Officer(2) and Jagat Ram Om Parkash v.  Excise<br \/>\nand  Taxation  Officer,\t Assessing  Authority,\tAmritsar(3).<br \/>\nNeither\t of  these decisions would be of assistance  as\t the<br \/>\nquestion  which\t was canvassed in Ghanshyam Das&#8217;s  case\t (1)<br \/>\nregarding  assessment  proceedings having  commenced  within<br \/>\ntime  and  then\t remaining  pending  did  not  come  up\t for<br \/>\nconsideration.\tSince the said notice dated January 11, 1957<br \/>\nwas served on the respondent firm before the expiry of three<br \/>\nyears from the respective dates for furnishing the  returns,<br \/>\nthe  assessment proceedings must be held to  have  commenced<br \/>\nfrom that date which was within time and thus the assessment<br \/>\nproceedings  remained pending until they were terminated  by<br \/>\nthe assessment order.  Though that order was finalised after<br \/>\nthe expiry of three years from the said period, it could not<br \/>\nbe attacked on the ground of its being beyond limitation and<br \/>\ntherefore  without  jurisdiction.  The order passed  by\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  allowing the respondent&#8217;s\twrit  petition\thas,<br \/>\ntherefore,  to\tbe set aside.  The appeal succeeds  and\t the<br \/>\nwrit  petition\tis dismissed.  In the circumstances  of\t the<br \/>\ncase,  however,\t we do not propose to pass any order  as  to<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<pre>V.P.S.\t\t\t\t  Appeal allowed.\n(1) [1964] 4 S. C. R. 436.\n(3) [1965] 16 P.L.R. 107.\n(2) [1963] P.L.R. 768.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">19<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Punjab &amp; Ors vs M\/S. Tara Chand Lajpat Rai on 28 February, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1408, 1967 SCR (3) 10 Author: Shelat Bench: Shelat, J.M. PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. TARA CHAND LAJPAT RAI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/02\/1967 BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: SHELAT, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-157769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Punjab &amp; Ors vs M\/S. Tara Chand Lajpat Rai on 28 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Punjab &amp; Ors vs M\/S. Tara Chand Lajpat Rai on 28 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1967-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-23T02:30:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Punjab &amp; Ors vs M\\\/S. Tara Chand Lajpat Rai on 28 February, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-23T02:30:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967\"},\"wordCount\":3635,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967\",\"name\":\"State Of Punjab &amp; Ors vs M\\\/S. Tara Chand Lajpat Rai on 28 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-02-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-23T02:30:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Punjab &amp; Ors vs M\\\/S. Tara Chand Lajpat Rai on 28 February, 1967\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Punjab &amp; Ors vs M\/S. Tara Chand Lajpat Rai on 28 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Punjab &amp; Ors vs M\/S. Tara Chand Lajpat Rai on 28 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-23T02:30:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Punjab &amp; Ors vs M\/S. Tara Chand Lajpat Rai on 28 February, 1967","datePublished":"1967-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-23T02:30:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967"},"wordCount":3635,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967","name":"State Of Punjab &amp; Ors vs M\/S. Tara Chand Lajpat Rai on 28 February, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-02-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-23T02:30:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-punjab-ors-vs-ms-tara-chand-lajpat-rai-on-28-february-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Punjab &amp; Ors vs M\/S. Tara Chand Lajpat Rai on 28 February, 1967"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157769","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=157769"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157769\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}