Law: Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)

Section: 28,2(20)

(a) Sales Tax Act (III of 1951) ---S. 28 read with S. 2(20), proviso-Assessment framed on 14-6-1961 for assessment year ending 31-3-1961 (after four years)-Held, not barred by time.-[Limitation].Hossein Brothers (Pak.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Companies P L D 1965 Dacca 28 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, North Zone (West Pakistan), Lahore v. Messrs Hilal Tanneries. Lahore Tax Reference No. 15 of 1965 ref.Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Messrs Ansar Textile Mills, Lahore P L D 1966 Lab. 505 fol.(b) Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)---S. 28 read with S. 23-Imposition of penalty-Order imposing penalty passed contemporaneously with main order of assessment �Separate show-cause notice, held, not necessary in connection with such a consequential order passed in presence of assessee in same proceedings.JUDGMENT The Sales Tax Officer (Investigation), Lahore, respondent No. 1, vide his order dated 14-6-1961, created a demand for Rs. 50,332 under section 10(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) for the assessment year 19!6-57 upon the petitioner firm, and by another order passed on the same date, viz. 14-6-1961, imposed upon it a penalty of Rs. 20,000 under section 33(1)(a) of the Act. By this writ petition the validity of these two orders is questioned. 2. Several grounds, including those of Constitutional nature, were taken in the wait petition, but as these questions have since been settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Messrs Noorani Cotton Corporation v. The Sales Tax Officer "A" Ward, Lyallpur (P L D 1965 S C 161) only two contentions have been pressed before me, namely (a) that the impugned assessment was barred by time, because the period in which the assessment could be framed under section 28 of the Act was four years from the end of the assessment year. In so far as the assessment year in this case ended on 31-3-1957 the assessment could be framed at the latest by 31-3-1961, hence the assessment framed on 14-6-1961 was out of time; and (b) that the order imposing the penalty had been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner firm and providing it with an opportunity of being heard, hence it was a…