IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 3078 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 1993-94. According to the petitioner the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11(4) of the Act for framing the assessment has 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. 3078 of 2005 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 2 CWP No. 3078 of 2005 (JASWANT SINGH) July 3, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3