M/s Food Corporation of India v. State of Punjab
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. 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…
Judgment
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.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
To be referred to the Reporters or not?
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) JUDGE January 13, 2009 Pkapoor
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 — s. 22.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 13 Jan 2009. The bench was M M KUMAR, H S BHALLA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.