IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 10526 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 16, 2009 M/s Bassi Tubes (P) Ltd. …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. K.L. Goyal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 10526 of 2009 and 18782 of 2009. In the first petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.1.2009 (P-6) and in the second petition directions have been sought directing the Value Added Tax Tribunal Punjab, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) to proceed with Appeal No. 556 of 2009. The assessment order dated 23.1.2009 (P-6) has been passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Mohali-respondent No. 2. The principal ground of challenge is that C.W.P. No. 10526 of 2009 the assessment order is beyond the period of limitation. It is also pertinent to mention that in the Appeal No. 556 of 2009 pending before the Tribunal, the order dated 24.4.2008 passed by the Commissioner granting extension of period of limitation upto 31.3.2009 for framing assessment in the case of the petitioner for the assessment year 2004-2005 is under challenge. However, in para 2 of the preliminary submissions of the written statement it has been specifically asserted that the assessment under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for brevity, ‘the PGST Act’) and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, was framed after obtaining extension from the Excise and Taxation Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 11(10) of the PGST Act. The Commissioner had granted extension for finalisation of assessment in respect of the petitioner for the year 2004-05 upto 31.3.2009, vide order dated 24.4.2008. The extension is claimed to have been granted before the expiry of period of limitation (R-1). Mr. K.L. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the order of extension has been challenged before the Tribunal and the matter has been adjourned sine die to await the decision of the instant petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the legal validity of the assessment order is dependent on the order granting extension of period under Section 11(10) of the PGST Act. If the order of extension is upheld then the question of validity of assessment order would arise otherwise assessment order independently may not stand legal scrutiny. Therefore, the proper 2 C.W.P. No. 10526 of 2009 course to be adopted by the Tribunal would be to proceed with the adjudication of the appeal filed by the petitioner where order of extension has been subject matter of challenge. Therefore, the instant petitions are disposed of at this stage with a direction to the Tribunal to take up the matter i.e. Appeal No. 556 of 2009, wherein the petitioner has challenged the order of extension. However, the instant order shall not be construed to have expressed any opinion on merit of the controversy and the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the order of assessment or the other order in accordance with law as and when such a necessity arises. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) December 16, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3