http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: BHARAT STEEL TUBES LTD. & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1988

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) DUTT, M.M. (J)

CITATION:  1988 SCR  (3) 895        1988 SCC  (3) 478  JT 1988 (2)   320        1988 SCALE  (1)842

ACT:      Haryana General  Sales Tax  Act, 1973:  Sections 25, 28 and 28A:  Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948: Section 11(3): Sales Tax-Assessment-When  complete-When no statutory period fixed-Necessity   for    assessment    to    be    completed expeditiously-Within reason-able  period-What is  reasonable period-Dependent on  facts of case-Best judgment assessment- Prior  notice   to  dealer  by  assessing  authority-Whether necessary-Question left open.

HEADNOTE:      The petitioners  are a  public limited  company and its General Manager  (Legal). The  Company was a manufacturer of electric resistence,  welded  steel  tubes  and  pipes,  and registered as  a dealer  under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973  as also  the Central  Sales  Tax  Act.  It  filed returns for all the quarters covered within the period 1968- 69 to  1974-75 as prescribed by the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948  till March 31, 1973 and under the Haryana Act for the quarters  of the remaining years as the Haryana Act came into force  with effect  from May 5, 1973. On the receipt of notice relating  to the  assessment years 1968-69 to 1973-74 in the  prescribed form  ST-XIV under s. 14(2) of the Punjab Act, and  in the prescribed form ST-25 under s. 28(2) of the Haryana Act  relating to  the year  1974-75 the  petitioner- Company   appeared   before   respondent   No.   2-Assessing Authority, and  complied with  the requirements  of the said notice by  production of  documents, books and other papers. While the matter was thus proceeding, respondent No. 2 again issued  a   notice  on  September  24,  1982  requiring  the petitioner-Company to  produce certain  further records  and documents.      The petitioners  in their  writ petition challenged the notices and  also the  vires of  Section 28A  of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973.      On the  question: Whether  an order of assessment under subsection (3)  of section  11 of  the Punjab Act or section 28(3) of  the Haryana  Act can  now be completed or would be barred by limitation. 896      Dismissing the writ petition,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

^      HELD: 1.  Assessment of  tax should  be completed  with expedition. It involves the revenue to the State. [905B-C]      2. In  the case  of a  registered dealer  who  collects sales-tax on  behalf of the State, there is no justification for him  to withhold the payment of the tax so collected. If a timely  assessment is completed, the dues of the State can be  conveniently   ascertained  and   collected.  Delay   in completion of  assessment often creates problems. Long delay is not  in the interest of either the assessee or the State. [905C-D]      3.  In   the  absence   of  any  prescribed  period  of limitation, the  assessment has  to be  completed  within  a reasonable period.  What such  reasonable period  would  be, would depend upon the facts of each case. [904E-F]      4. Until  by statute,  a limitation  is provided, it is proper for  the State  Government to  require, by  statutory rules or  appropriate instructions,  to ensure completion of assessments with expedition and reasonable haste but subject to rules of natural justice. [905E-F]      In the  instant case,  though notices were issued under sections 11(2)  of the  Punjab Act  or Section  28(2) of the Haryana Act  within a  reasonable period  from the filing of returns for  the respective quarters in the assessment years under consideration,  further action  had not  been taken by the assessing  officer to complete the assessments. Now that the assessing  authority  intends  to  complete  assessments under section  11(3) of  the Act, no prejudice is seen to be caused  to  the  assessee  if  the  assessing  authority  is permitted to  complete the  assessment now. In the situation which has  thus arisen, it would be appropriate to call upon the  assessing  authority  to  complete  all  these  pending assessments within  a total  period of  four months  on  the basis of  available material  in the  record before him, and such other  material  as  the  authority  may  obtain.  Such assessment has  to be  only under  section 11(3) of the Act. [904D-E;G-H;905A-B]      5. It  may be  that in a given case the original notice under  section   11(2)  or   a  subsequent  order  requiring production of  some more  material on specific points is not complied with.  Non-compliance with the notice under section 11(2) of  the Act leads to a situation where a best judgment assessment can  be complied.  This Court in Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd.  & Anr.  v. Excise  and Taxation Officer & Anr., [1977] 1 897 SCR 716 has indicated that a further notice has to be given. The question  that fell  for determination  before the Court did not  require examination as to whether such a notice was necessary.  Though   such  a   notice  is  not  a  statutory prescription, judicial  propriety  would  require  a  larger bench of the Court to examine the correctness of the view in the Indian  Aluminium case.  On an appropriate occasion, the question  as  to  whether  such  a  notice  is  a  condition precedent to  completion of  assessment would  be  examined. [903E-H]      Ghanshyamdas  v.  Regional  Assistant  Commissioner  of Sales Tax,  Nagpur &  Ors. 14  STC 976;  Madan Lal  Arora v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, 12 STC 387; Jagat Ram Om Prakash  v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, 16 STC 107 and  Indian Aluminium  Cables Ltd.  & Anr. v. Excise and Taxation Officer & Anr., [1977] 1 SCR 716, referred to.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 3589- 3594 & 12587 of 1983.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).      Raja Ram  Aggarwal and Vineet Kumar for the Petitioners in WP. Nos. 3589-94 of 1983.      Harish N. Salve and Vineet Kumar for the Petitioners in WP. No. 12587 of 1983.      Harbans Lal,  Ms. I.S.  Goel and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RANGANATH  MISRA,   J.  These  are  applications  under Article 32  of  the  Constitution  and  challenge  in  these proceedings is  to the  validity of  notice  issued  by  the Excise   and   Taxation   Officer-Cum-Assessing   Authority, Respondent no.  2, under  the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter  referred to  as ’the  Haryana Act’). Such notice is  said to  have been  issued on  18th of  December, 1980. The  relevant periods  are 1968-69 to 1974-75 and each of the  writ petitions  relates to  one of  these years.  As common questions  of fact  and law  arise in these petitions and a  common set of arguments has been advanced at the Bar, we proceed  to dispose  of all  these writ  petitions  by  a common judgment. 898      The petitioner No. 1, a Public Limited Company, has its factory at  Ganaur within the District of Sonepat in Haryana State and  petitioner No.  2 is  its General Manager (Legal) and  duly   constituted  Attorney.   Petitioner  No.   1   a manufacturer of  electric resistence, welded steel tubes and pipes, is  a dealer registered under the Haryana Act as also under the  Central Sales  Tax Act.  It filed returns for all the quarters  covered within  the period  indicated above as prescribed  by  the  Punjab  General  Sales  Tax  Act,  1948 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Punjab Act’) till 31.3.1973 and under  the Haryana  Act for the quarters of the remained years in  question as  the Haryana  Act came into force with effect from 5th May, 1973. On the receipt of notice relating to assessment  years  1968-69,  1969-70,  1970-71,  1971-72, 1972-73 and  1973-74 in  the prescribed  form  ST-XIV  under section 14(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and in the prescribed  form  ST-25  under  section  28(2)  of  the  Act relating to  year 1974-75,  the petitioner  company appeared before  the   respondent  No.   2  and   complied  with  the requirements of  such notice  by  production  of  documents, books  and   other  papers.   While  the   matter  was  thus proceeding, the  second respondent  again issued a notice on 24.9.1982  requiring   the  petitioner  company  to  produce certain further  records and  documents. The  petitioner has challenged that  notice as  also the vires of section 28A of the Haryana Act.      Section 11 of the Punjab Act lays down the procedure of assessment which  broadly corresponds  to section  28 of the Haryana Act.  Though a  major part of the period involved in these proceedings  would be  covered by  the Punjab  Act, it would  be   sufficient  to  refer  for  convenience  to  the corresponding provisions  of the  Haryana Act. Section 25 of the Haryana  Act obliges  every registered dealer to furnish its return  in the  manner prescribed and the relevant rules require returns  to be  submitted on  quarterly basis.  Sub- section (1)  of section  28 entitles the assessing authority to accept  the returns and assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns when he is satisfied without  requiring   the  presence  of  the  dealer  or  the production by him of any evidence that the returns furnished

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

are correct  and  complete.  Sub-section  (2)  requires  the assessing authority,  where  he  is  not  satisfied  without requiring the  presence  of  the  dealer  or  production  of evidence in  support of the return to serve on such dealer a notice in  the prescribed  manner requiring him to attend in person or  to produce  or cause to be produced such evidence as he  may rely  upon in  support of  the return. Under sub- section (3),  where the  dealer responds to the notice under sub-section (2),  the assessing authority after hearing such evidence as  the dealer  may produce and such other evidence as the 899 assessing authority  may require on specified points, has to assess the  tax. Sub-section  (4) authorises  the  assessing authority in  the event  of default  of compliance  with the terms of  notice issued  under sub-section (2) to proceed to assess, to  the best  of his judgment, the amount of tax due from the  dealer. Sub-section  (5) deals  with the situation where returns  are not  furnished and  provides a  period of five years  after the  expiry of  such period  to which  the returns, if  filed, would  be related as the outer limit for completing the  assessment to  the  best  of  the  assessing authority’s judgment.  The five  sub-sections of  section 28 thus deal with four different situations:      Sub-section(1) authorises  the making  of assessment on the basis of returning without anything more;      Sub-sections (2)  and  (3)  deal  with  one  particular situation, namely,  when the  assessing authority  looks for evidence and  supporting material,  he calls upon the dealer to appear  and produce his accounts and on the basis of such material he is to complete the assessment;      Sub-section (4) deals with the situation where there is failure of  compliance with the notice under sub-section (2) and this  provision enjoins  upon the assessing authority to complete the  assessment,  according  to  the  best  of  his judgment, within a period of five years;      Sub-section (5)  deals  with  the  situation  where  no return is filed.      For each  of these  years under consideration, that is, either under  section 11(2)  of  the  Punjab  Act  or  under section 28(2)  of the Haryana Act, notice has been issued by the  assessing   officer.  The   assessing  officer  in  his affidavit has made it clear that assessments for these years were intended  to be  completed following  the procedure  in sub-sections (2)  and (3)  of either  of the sections in the two Acts.  It has,  therefore, been  contended,  relying  on judgments  of   this  Court  that  there  is  no  prescribed limitation for  completing such  assessments. In  course  of argument,  learned   counsel  for   the  State  has  further indicated that  action under  section 28A of the Haryana Act was not intended to be taken. In that view of the matter, it is indeed  unnecessary to refer to the provisions of section 28A of  the Haryana  Act and  deal with  several contentions advanced at  the  Bar  with  reference  to  that  provision. Equally unnecessary  would be  to find out the exact meaning of "proceed to assess to the best of his judgment" appearing in sub-section (4) of section 28 of the Haryana Act.      In Ghanshyamdas  v. Regional  Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax,  Nagpur &  Ors., 14 STC 976 a five-Judge bench of this Court was 900 actually dealing  with a case of assessment of escaped turn- over and  for that purpose had to find out whether there was any escapement of tax if proceedings in respect of the first assessment itself  was still  pending and  no final order of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

assessment had  been made.  Dealing with  this aspect,  this Court held:           "It is  manifest that  in the case of a registered           dealer, the  proceedings before  the  Commissioner           start factually  when a  return is  made or when a           notice is issued to him either under section 10(3)           or under  section 11(2) of the Act. The acceptance           of the  contention that  statutory  obligation  to           file a  return  initiates  the  proceeding  is  to           invoke a  fiction not  sanctioned by  the Act. The           obligation can  be enforced  by taking  a suitable           action under the Act. Taking of such an action may           have the  effect of initiating proceedings against           the defaulter. The default may be the occasion for           initiating the  proceedings but the default itself           proprio  vigore   cannot   initiate   proceedings.           Proceedings in  respect of  the assessment  of the           turn-over  for   the   relevant   period   cannot,           therefore,  be  said  to  be  pending  before  the           Commissioner ......  For the foregoing reasons, we           hold that  a statutory obligation to make a return           within a  prescribed time  does not proprio vigore           initiate the  assessment  proceedings  before  the           Commissioner; but  the proceedings  would commence           after the  return was submitted and would continue           till a final order of assessment is made in regard           to the said return."      On the  basis of  this authority,  it would follow that notices under  sub-section  (2)  of  either  section  11  or section 28  of the  relevant Acts, having already issued and final orders  of assessment having not been made, assessment proceedings are still pending.      In Madan  Lal Arora  v. Excise  and  Taxation  Officer, Amritsar, 12  STC 387  a five-Judge  Bench was examining the question  of  limitation  in  respect  of  a  best  judgment assessment. At that time, section 11 of the Punjab Act had a time limit  of three  years within  which the  best judgment assessment  had   to  be   completed.  Now  that  period  of limitation in  section 28(4)  is of  five years.  In view of what we  have already  noted, consideration of the procedure for best judgment assessment is not relevant.      Nor are  we concerned  with the examination of the view taken by 901 the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jagat Ram Om  Prakash v. Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, 16 STC 107.  Therein, the examination was with reference to the provisions in section 11(4) of the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act,  1948 and  the  question  of  the  time  limit  for completion of  a best  judgment asscssment was in issue. The Court pointed  out that  as to  at what  point of  time  the assessing officer  did actually  proceed to  so assess would have to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case and  it is  not possible  to lay  down any definite and clear-cut test  applicable to  all cases.  It was,  however, pointed out  that there  must be  some definite  act or step taken from  which it  can be  clearly perceptible  that from that point  of time  the assessing  officer has proceeded to access to  the best  of its judgment and the commencement of this process  must be  within the  period of three years, as provided in section 11(4) of that Act.      In Indian  Aluminium Cables  Ltd. &  Anr. v. Excise and Taxation Officer  & Anr.,  [1977] 1  SCR 716  a  three-Judge Bench  of  this  Court  was  considering  the  procedure  of assessment laid  down under  section 11  of the  Punjab Act.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

This Court observed:           "On a correct interpretation of the provision           aforesaid, what emerges is as follows:                (i)That the  assessing authority  shall  hear                the evidence  produced by  the dealer  on the                day specified in the notice issued under sub-                section (2).                (ii)It can  adjourn the hearing to some other                day and  hear the  evidence produced  by  the                dealer on the adjourned day or days.                (iii)The assessing  authority may require the                dealer  to   produce  further   evidence   on                specified points  on  the  adjourned  day  or                days.                (iv)The assessing authority should assess the                amount of tax due from the dealer, that is to                say, pass the order of assessment, on the day                on which  the  hearing  of  the  evidence  is                completed as soon afterwards as may be."      There  can   be  no   opposition  to  the  position  as summarised with  reference to  section 11(2)  and (3) of the Punjab Act  corresponding to  section 28(2)  and (3)  of the Haryana Act. 902      The Court proceeded to state:                "Sub-section (4)  of section  11 is attracted           in a case where a dealer having furnished a return           in respect  of a  period fails  to comply with the           terms of a notice issued under sub-section (2). In           such a  case, the  assessing authority has to take           some effective  step, such as issuance of a notice           to the  assessee  ntimating  to  him  that  he  is           proceeding to  access to  the best of his judgment           the amount  of tax due from the dealer. On failure           of a  dealer to  furnish a  return in  respect any           period  by   the  prescribed  date  the  assessing           authority after  giving the  dealer  a  reasonable           opportunity of  being heard  can proceed to access           to the  best of his judgment the amount of tax, if           any, due  from the dealer. In such a case, also an           effective step such as issuance of a notice to the           dealer  concerned   showing  that   the  assessing           authority is  proceeding to  access has  got to be           taken within  five years  of  the  expiry  of  the           period concerned.  Sub-section (6) is attracted in           the case  of a  dealer who being liable to pay tax           under  the   act   has   failed   to   apply   for           registration. Similar  steps as  the  ones  to  be           taken under  sub-section (5) are to be taken under           sub-section (6)  within a  period  of  five  years           after the  expiry of the concerned period. But the           Legislature advisedly  did not  fix any  period of           limitation for  taking up  of  the  steps  or  the           passing of  the assessment  order under any of the           sub-sections  (1),  (2)  or  (3).  The  reason  is           obvious.  Best   judgment   assessments   in   the           circumstances mentioned in any of the sub-sections           (4), (5)  or (6)  could not  be allowed to be made           after the  expiry of  a  certain  reasonable  time           which the  Legislature  thought  was  three  years           previously but made it five years by Punjab Act 28           of 1965.  But where  a registered dealer has filed           the return,  the assessing  authority can pass the           assessment order  under sub-section (1) and accept           the return  filed by  the dealer  as  correct  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

         complete. In  such a case the formality of passing           an order  of assessment is to be completed without           any further demand of tax from the dealer. For the           issuance of a notice under sub-section (2) no time           limit has  been fixed, but the assessing authority           must remain  on its  guard of taking the steps and           completing the  assessment as  soon as  it may  be           possible to  do so.  Otherwise, the  risk involved           may just  be pointed  out. Take  a  case  where  a           notice under  sub-section (2)  is issued after the           expiry or 903           just on  the verge of expiry of the period of five           years and  the dealer  fails to  comply  with  the           terms of the notice. In such a case, the assessing           authority may  have to  proceed to  make the  best           judgment   assessment    under   sub-section   (4)           attracting the  bar of  limitation of  five years.           But, of course, there may be a case where in spite           of the  failure of  the dealer  to comply with the           terms of  the notice  a suit under sub-section (2)           the assessing  authority may  be in  a position to           complete  the  assessment  under  sub-section  (3)           treating the  alleged failure of the dealer as not           a real failure on his part."      Section  11(4)   of  the  Punjab  Act  which  has  been considered in  this case  no where  requires a  notice to be given to  the dealer  by the assessing authority of the fact that he  was going  to assess  to the  best of his judgment. Where it  is not  possible for  the assessing  authority  to complete the  assessment on  the basis  of the  return and a notice under  sub-section (2)  has been issued, the assessee appears before  the assessing  authority and  respond to the notice. Once  the assessee  is before  the authority and the documents  and   evidence  produced   by  the  assessee  are examined, the  assessee would  certainly know  which way the assessment proceeding  is heading. It is quite possible that in course  of examination  of the  papers  produced  by  the assessee in  answer to  the notice,  the assessing authority would indicate  his dissatisfaction  with the compliance. It may be  that in  a given  case  the  original  notice  under section 11(2)  or a subsequent order requiring production of some more  material on specific points is not complied with. Non-compliance with  the notice  under section  11(2) of the Act leads  to a  situation where  a best judgment assessment can be  complied. It  is true  that  this  Court  in  Indian Aluminiuim case  (supra) has indicated that a further notice has to  be given.  The question  that fell for determination before the  Court did  not require examination as to whether such a  notice was necessary. In view of the position as has emerged in  the matter  before us,  we also  do not think it necessary to  finally indicate  as to  whether such a notice has to  be issued  and failure  to issue such a notice would prevent the  assessing officer  from making  a best judgment assessment. Though  we are of the opinion that such a notice is not  a statutory  prescription, we  do not  intend to say anything more about it as judicial propriety would require a larger bench  of the Court to examine the correctness of the view  in  the  Indian  Aluminium  case.  On  an  appropriate occasion, we  hope the  question as to whether such a notice is a  condition precedent  to completion of assessment would be examined. 904      In  Indian   Aluminium  case  (supra)  this  Court  has approved the  earlier decision  in Gurbax  Singh v. Union of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

India, [1976] 3 SCR 247. The ratio in Gurbax Singh’s case is that in  the absence  of a  period provided  by statute  for completion of  assessment, an  order of assessment made with some delay would not be without jurisdiction. Even in Indian Aluminium  case   (supra),  where   the   statute   requires assessment to  be completed  within a  reasonable time,  the Court indicated  that the  argument of  the learned  counsel that the  assessment had to be completed within a reasonable time in  order to  be sustainable  was not  acceptable as  a sound one.      The short question that really falls for examination in this case  is whether  an order  of  assessment  under  sub- section (3) of section 11 of the Punjab Act or section 28(3) of the  Haryana Act  can now  be completed  or would that be barred   by    limitation.   Undoubtedly,   the   assessment proceedings have  been very  delayed. As the material placed before us  shows, the  assessee had  gone  before  different courts from  time to  time to ask for injunction against the completion of  assessment but  that trial  appears  be  have started  in  December,  1980  when  a  suit  was  filed  and injunction was  obtained. Though  notices were  issued under sections 11(2) of the Punjab Act or 28(2) of the Haryana Act within a  reasonable period  from the  filing of returns for the  respective  quarters  in  the  assessment  years  under consideration, further  action has  not been  taken  by  the assessing officer  to complete  the assessments.  But as  we have said  above, in the absence of any prescribed period of limitation, the  assessment has  to be  completed  within  a reasonable period.  What such  reasonable period  would  be, would depend  upon facts  of each case. One view can be that it should  be a  period not  exceeding  five  years  as  the Legislature has  fixed the  limitation  of  five  years  for completing assessments  in case  of escaped turnover. Unless then be  an assessment  made soon  after the period to which such assessment  relates, the  question of  consideration of escapement would  indeed become  difficult to  consider  and examine. We,  are, however,  not inclined  to extend  into a situation like the one before us, a period of limitation for completion of  assessments under  sections 11(3) or 28(3) of the respective  Acts. The  assessee has made returns for all the quarters  and must  have paid its admitted tax. Now that the assessing  authority  intends  to  complete  assessments under section  11(3) of  the Act, we see no prejudice to the assessee if the assessing authority is permitted to complete the assessment  now. On  the other hand, if no assessment is made an  anomalous situation might arise and even though the assessee has  collected the  sales tax on its sale turnover, it might raise a claim for refund of it in the absence of an assess- 905 ment. We do not propose to create such a situation. It would suffice to say that in the situation which has arisen it the matter before  us, it  would be appropriate to call upon the assessing  authority   to   complete   all   these   pending assessments within  a total period of four months from today on the  basis of available material in the record before him and such  other material  as the  authority may  obtain. We, however, make  it clear  that such assessment has to be only under section 11(3) of the Act.      Before we part with the case, we would like to indicate that assessment  of tax should be completed with expedition. It involves  the revenue  to the  state. In  the case  of  a registered dealer  who collects  sales-tax on  behalf of the State, there  is no  justification for  him to  withhold the payment of  the tax  so collected. If a timely assessment is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

completed,  the  dues  of  the  State  can  be  conveniently ascertained and collected. Delay in completion of assessment often creates  problems. The  assessee would  be required to keep up  all the  evidence in  support of  his transactions. Where evidence  is necessary,  with the lapse of time, there is scope  for its  being lost.  Oral evidence  as  and  when required to  be produced  by the assessing authority may not be  available  if  a  long  period  intervenes  between  the transactions and  the consideration  of the  matter  by  the assessing authority.  Long delay thus is not in the interest of either  the assessee  or the  State. In  view of the fact that a period of limitation has been prescribed for bringing the escaped  turn-over into  the net  of taxation,  such  an eventuality cannot  be grappled  with  appropriately  unless timely assessment  is completed. In several taxing statutes, even in  a  situation  like  this,  where  assessment  under sections  11(3)   or  28(3)   of  the   respective  Acts  is contemplated, a  period of  limitation is provided. Until by statute, such a limitation is provided, it is proper for the State  Governments   to  require,   by  statutory  rules  or appropriate   instructions,    to   ensure   completion   of assessments with expedition and reasonable haste but subject to rules of natural justice.      We would  like to clarify the position that we have not dealt with  the vires  of section 28A of the Haryana Act nor have we  found any necessity to deal with the requirement of notice before  the assessing  authority proceeds to complete the assessment  according to the best of his judgment. These questions are left open.      Each of  the writ  petitions is,  therefore, dismissed. Parties are directed to bear the respective costs. N.V.K.                             Petitions dismissed. 906