Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)Section 21 in Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar & ... on 1 October, 1958
9. Mr. Sarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the Assessing Authority had decided the case according to the interpretation of law by the highest departmental authorities at that time. The fact that the High Court had taken a different view and had held transmission rubber belting to be taxable and that this fact had been brought to the notice of the revisional authority, respondent No. 2, leads to an irresistible conclusion that the case fell within the ambit of Section 11A of the Act. He has argued that in Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa [1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the word "information" in Section 34(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act included information as to the true and correct state of law and so would cover information as to relevant judicial decisions.
Hari Chand Rattan Chand & Co. vs The Deputy Excise & Taxation ... on 22 May, 1969
If the revisional authority relies upon or takes into account some material which was not present before the Assessing Authority, then according to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Hari Chand Rattan Chand and Co. v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Additional), Punjab [1969] 24 STC 258 (FB), the Assessing Authority can exercise its suo motu powers only within a period prescribed under Section 11A of the Act. The relevant observations of their Lordships are as under :
Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Laxmi Machinery Store vs State Of Punjab on 13 October, 1976
3. The internal audit pointed out that the Assessing Authorities while framing the assessment of the petitioner for the abovementioned years had wrongly granted exemption from tax of the sales of the transmission rubber belting in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Laxmi Machinery Store v. State of Punjab [1977] 39 STC 87. Respondent No. 2, in exercise of powers under . Section 21(1) of the Act, issued notices to the petitioner indicating his intention to reopen the assessment for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. This action was taken suo motu. The petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2 and sought adjournments. On 12th November, 1979, the petitioner moved an application for a short adjournment because his counsel was busy in some other court. The respondent did not adjourn the case and finalised the assessment for the year 1968-69. The cases for the latter two years were, however, not decided. The petitioner filed a revision petition taking grounds on merits. Respondent No. 2 had been conferred powers to exercise jurisdiction under Section 21(1) of the Act in relation to the orders passed by the Assessing Authorities within his jurisdiction. A notification regarding the same is attached as exhibit P8 to the petition. Respondent No. 2 is an Assessing Authority for Amritsar District and orders annexures P1, P2 and P3 were passed by the Assessing Authority, Amritsar. However, the Assessing Authority and respondent No. 2 had concurrent jurisdiction over the whole of the district. The Assessing Authority is not in any way subordinate to respondent No. 2.
1