CWP No. 11317 and 11428 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.11317 of 2007 Date of decision 1.9.2009 Cosmos Industries Limited ... Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. K.L.Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Goyal ,Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.K.Jain, Addl.AG Punjab for the respondents. 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 11317 and 11428 of 2007 as the issue raised in both the petitions is the same. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 11317 of 2007. Through the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prayer made by the petitioner is for quashing order dated 27.12.2006 (P.2) passed by the Assessing Authority, Dhuri in respect of assessment year 2002-03 (in CWP No. 11317 of 2007) and 2001-02 (in CWP No. 11428 of 2007). The principal ground of challenge is that the impugned order has been passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act,1948 (for brevity 'the Act'). Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a sugar manufacturing unit and is registered under the provisions of the Act. There is a List of tax free goods given in Schedule 'B' of the Act and 'Sugar' CWP No. 11317 and 11428 of 2007 2 figures as one of the item. Sugarcane purchased by the petitioner, used in manufacturing of sugar is an item of schedule 'C'. The goods listed in this schedule are liable to purchase tax. On 27.5.1988 (P.1), the respondents has issued a notification under Section 17 of the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953 (for brevity 'the 1953 act') fixing the rate of tax @ Rs.0.50 per quintal which the petitioner has been duly depositing. In respect of the assessment years 2002-03 and 2001-02, the petitioner dealer filed returns of tax under the Act claiming sale of sugar as tax free. As far as sugarcane was concerned, no tax was paid on its purchases as the dealer was claiming that since tax on purchase is leviable under the 1953 Act. It is alleged in the petition that under Section 11(3) of the Act, the assessment of the dealer can be framed within three years from the last day of filing of the returns. In respect of Assessment year 2001-02 (CWP No. 11317 of 2007) the date for filing of return was 30.4.2003. The assessment was therefore required to be framed on or before 30.4.2006 whereas in respect of Assessment year 2002-03 ( CWP No. 11428 of 2007) the last date for filing of return was 30.4.2002 and the assessment was required to be framed on or before 30.4.2005. The petitioner has claimed that assessment was time barred in both the cases because no order was passed by the Assessing Authority within three year as per the requirement of Section 11(3) of the Act. However, the Assessing Authority framed assessment on 27.12.2006 (P.2) levying tax on the purchases of sugarcane. The petitioner has challenged the notice on the ground that the Assessing Authority was to finalise the assessment within a period of three years from the last date prescribed for furnishing the last return in respect of any period. Therefore, the period prescribed for finalising the assessment CWP No. 11317 and 11428 of 2007 3 has come to an end on 30.4.2006 (in CWP No. 11317 of 2007) and 30.4.2005 ( in CWP No. 11428 of 2007) and the assessment in these case were framed on 27.12.2006 (P.2). On a bare perusal of Section 11(3) of the Act the assessment in both the cases is beyond period of three years and there is not even a whisper by the respondents claiming that the period of three years was ever extended under Section 11(10) of the Act. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioner is meritorious on the perusal of plain statutory provision. Even otherwise the matter is no longer res-integra. A similar issue came up for consideration of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Emkay Industries v. State of Punjab (2005) 139 STC 57. The Division Bench allowed the petition and quashed the notice issued by the Assessing Authority for the purpose of completion of assessment after the expiry of period of three years. Therefore, on principle and precedent, the matter stand concluded in favour of the petitioner and against the revenue. In view of the above position of law, the instant petition is allowed. The assessment order dated 31.3.2005 (P.9) is quashed. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected petition. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 1.9.2009 Judge okg