w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Jainson Hosiery Industries v/s Assessing Authority


Company & Directors' Information:- J G HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101TZ2001PTC009707

Company & Directors' Information:- K D S HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101PB2001FTC024327

Company & Directors' Information:- R M H HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17125DL2007PTC167271

Company & Directors' Information:- P T M HOSIERY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U52322WB1994PTC062394

Company & Directors' Information:- M G HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17124TZ2002PTC010195

Company & Directors' Information:- D D HOSIERY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U18101WB1973PTC028694

Company & Directors' Information:- V V HOSIERY INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC032807

Company & Directors' Information:- M. B. HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2008PTC125110

Company & Directors' Information:- R R HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101MH1984PTC034394

Company & Directors' Information:- K K HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204MH2014PTC251777

Company & Directors' Information:- B B HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC267158

Company & Directors' Information:- M C S HOSIERY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311WB2001PTC093781

Company & Directors' Information:- S P HOSIERY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51311PB1985PTC006113

    Decided On, 14 February 1991

    At, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARJEET CHAUDHARY

    For the Appearing Parties: Anil Sharma, V. Ramswaroop, Advocates.



Judgment Text

AMARJEET CHAUDHARY, J. The petitioner is a partnership firm and has filed this writ petition through their partners for quashing P1, P2 and P5 orders dated 24th March, 1981, 12th January, 1983 and 15th February, 1988, respectively. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner is a dealer registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Assessing Authorities, Ludhiana, vide its orders dated 24th March, 1981, framed the original assessments for the years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and for the years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 under the State Act, respectively. Against these orders, the petitioner filed fifteen appeals before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, who vide his order dated 12th January, 1983, upheld the findings of the Assessing Authorities and dismissed the appeals of the petitioner. Against this order, the petitioner-dealer filed the appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, who vide his order dated 28th April, 1987, accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner dated 12th January, 1983 and directed that the tax may be levied on the petitioner-dealer in accordance with the law applicable on ready-made garments. The Presiding Officer, Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, vide his order dated 15th February, 1988, rectified the application filed by the State of Punjab, under section 21-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, read with section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Rectifying the orders of his predecessor, annexure P3 dated 28th April, 1987, held that the goods being manufactured by the assessee-dealer being ready-made hosiery were excluded from the concessional rate of sales tax as available under item 10 and item 18 of the Government notification and as such petitioner shall not be entitled to concessional rate of tax under the notifications. The petitioner's grievance in the writ petition is that the Presiding Officer, Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, has exceeded his jurisdiction in the abovesaid matter whatsoever in rectifying his predecessor's order dated 24th August, 1987. I am of the considered view that under section 21-A of the Act, a mistake apparent from record can be rectified within the stipulated period. The mistake should be clear from record without elaborate arguments. No apparent mistake from the record has been pointed out, and only the Presiding Officer has substituted his own views on the views of his predecessor which are not covered by the expression mistake apparent from record. I am of the view that the condition prece

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

dent for assuming jurisdiction has not been satisfied under section 21-A of the Act. At best it is a case of change of opinion. In view of foregoing reasons the impugned orders of rectification of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is quashed. Parties to bear their own costs. Writ petition allowed.
O R