1985 PLP 399 (PTD)

SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑These two reference applications under section 17 (1) of the Sales Tax Act raising 10 questions each will be disposed of by this judgment. At the rime of hearing the learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the following question only: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the sales‑tax assessment order is valid in terms of sections 10 and 28 of the Act as existing during the chargeable accounting year? These references relate to assessment years 1964‑65 and 1965‑

66. The assessment was completed by order date 19‑6‑1971. From the order of assessment it seems that notice in Form SST‑24 was issued and Mr. Usman Ali Advocate for the applicant had appeared before the Sales Tax Officer. It was after discussing the matter with him that the assessment order was passed. At the time of assessment the corresponding income‑tax assessment had not been finalised, and therefore, the applicant counsel agreed to the rectification on completion of the income‑tax assessment. The applicant filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed. Mr. Hassan Inamullah, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that the Assessing Officer was bound to assess and complete the assessment within a period of one year and as the assessment was not completed within that period the Sales Tax Officer ought to have issued a notice under section 28 of the Sales Tax Act. As no such notice was issued the entire proceeding was illegal. At the outset it may be stated that the learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to show any provision of law under which assessment relating to the assessment years 1964‑65 and 1966‑67 should have been completed within a period of one year. The learned counsel did not point out the date from which period of one year should be computed. If the argument is that the assessment should be completed within the assessment year then it is impossible as the returns are filed quarterly and as observed by the learned Tribunal the assessment regarding last quarter can never be completed within the same year. The learned counsel then referred to the provision of section 28 (2) of the Sales Tax Act and contended that as notice section 28 (2) was not issued to the assessee the assessment order is illegal. Mr. Nasrullah Awan the learned counsel for the Department has contended that the present cases are completely different from what has been contemplated by section

28. The learned counsel contended that they were pending proceedings, and therefore, the provision of section 28', will not apply. It is an admitted position that the applicant has been filing quarterly returns. The respondent issued notice in Form S.S.T., 24 in pursuance of which the applicant's representative had appeared.' There is nothing on record to show that on which date this notice was issued, nor this notice has been challenged by the applicant. In these circumstances, when a proper opportunity has been given to the appellant to represent its case and actually it was represented by an Advocate, we do not find in the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of the applicant as well founded. For these reasons, we answer the question on both the reference applications in the affirmative. M.B.A. Reference answered in affirmative.