The period of assessment companycerning the appellant is each quarter of the year.
1961/1976 for reliefs simi lar to the ones asked for in the other writ petition.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Orders dated 2 3 1976 and 21 7 1976 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos.
Even though the High Court decision was given on November 5, 1973, the matter became subjudice in appeal filed in this Court.
It is said that in respect of the 4 quarters of the 2 38 S.T.C. 108.
In substance and in effect, in spite of the Full Bench decision by the majority of the High Court in the case of Rameshwar Lal Sarup Chand v. Shri U.S. Naurath, Excise Taxation Officer, Assessing Authority, Amritsar and Another 1 , on which Mr. S.T. Desai, learned companynsel for the appellant heavily relied upon before us, neither Bench found any substance in the point of limitation raised by the Company and dismissed the two writ petitions in limine.
In other words, whether the Sales Tax Officer had jurisdiction to make assessment for the assessment year 1969 70 which had become time barred Whether Central Sales Tax was payable in respect of sale of electric cables manufactured and sold by the petitioner Company to State Electricity Boards in view of the exemption granted generally under section 8 2A of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 5 2 a iv of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.
Therefore, in the second writ petition, in the main, the question raised was one of limitation as in the other writ petition.
The decision of this Court is reported in Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. and another v. State of Haryana 2 .
According to the appellant, in the first writ petition were raised before the High Court the two main questions in the following terms Whether the assessment proceedings with regard to assessment year 1969 70 companyld be proceed ed with and whether assessment order companyld be passed beyond a period of 5 years after the expiry of the period to which the assessment relates.
It appears that the matter of assessment in respect of the year 1969 70 was taken up by the Assessing Authority again by issuance of a numberice on September 15, 1975.
The matter is companyered in favour of the respondent by 33 STC 152.
This writ petition was dismissed in limine by a Bench of the High Court stating Reply has been filed.
year 1970 71 numberices under section 11 2 of the Act were issued for the first time by the assessing authority on January 30, 1976.
The matter was brought to this Court in appeal and by a decision given on April 2, 1976 the view of the High Court was af firmed and it was held that the sales were number exempt from tax generally within the meaning of section 8 2A of the Central Act read with section 5 2 a iv of the Punjab Act.
1970 71, Returns were filed by the Company in time, i.e. on or before the last day of the month following the quarter companycerned.
The Tribunal decided the matter in favour of the assessee Company but the High Court of Punjab and Haryana answered the Sales Tax Reference made at the instance of the Revenue against the assessee.
415 and 962 of 1976.
In respect of the assessment year 1962 63, the Company raised a dispute that it was number liable to pay Central Sales Tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as it claimed to be exempt from inter State tax on the sales of its products to the various State Undertakings or Boards by reason of the provisions companytained in section 5 2 a iv of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The decision of the High Court is reported in The State v. Indian Aluminium Cable Ltd., Faridabad 1 .
In respect of.all the 8 quarters of the years 1969 70 and.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. In these two appeals by special leave a companymon question of law falls for our determination, hence, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
It sells and supplies aluminium cables to several State Electricity Undertakings or Boards situated in the various States.
The Assessing Authority did number accept the Returns and issued numberices on May 22, 1970 under section 11 2 of the Act in respect of the 4 quarters of 1969 70 requiring the assessee Company to pro duce evidence in support of the Returns.
Thereupon, the Company filed in the High Court Civil Writ Petition No.
C. Bhandare and R.N. Sachthey, for the Respondents in both appeals .
of Haryana and its Officer the Excise and Taxation Officer, Faridabad, from proceeding with the assessment.
561/1976 in the High Court on January 27, 1976 to quash the numberice dated Septem ber 15, 1975 and to re.strain the State.
1 in both the appeals has got its factory at Faridabad in the State of Haryana.
T. Desai, Talat Ansari and Shri Narain for J.B. Dadac hanji, for the Appellants in both appeals .
561 and 1961 of 1976 respectively .
It appears by the time the second writ petition came to be filed the appellants liability to pay Central Sales Tax was decided by this Court in the case referred to above.
The Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd., appellant No.
Thereupon, the Company filed Civil Writ Petition No.
Another Bench of the High Court dismissed this writ petition in limine on July 21, 1976.
