1956 (12) TMI 34 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer to assess the petitioner.
2. Validity of the transfer order issued by the Commissioner, Sales Tax.
3. Pecuniary jurisdiction based on taxable turnover.
4. Petitioner's conduct and estoppel.
5. Availability of an alternative remedy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer to Assess the Petitioner:
The petitioner contended that the Sales Tax Officer, Shri Kolhe, lacked jurisdiction to assess him for the years 1952-53 and 1953-54. The argument was based on the assertion that the Commissioner, Sales Tax, had determined the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officers at Indore, empowering only Shri Pancholia to make the assessment in the petitioner's case. However, it was established that the Commissioner had the authority under Rule 46 of the Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Rules, 1950, to transfer any case or class of cases from one Sales Tax Officer to another. The Commissioner exercised this power and transferred the petitioner's case to Shri Kolhe, who then had the jurisdiction to assess the petitioner.

2. Validity of the Transfer Order Issued by the Commissioner, Sales Tax:
The petitioner argued that the transfer order was illegal and beyond the Commissioner's powers, as it transferred not only the pending case for the year 1951-52 but also future cases. The court examined Rule 46, which allows the Commissioner to transfer any case or class of cases pending before one Sales Tax Officer to another. The court found that while the order was general, it was intended to benefit the petitioner, who had himself requested the transfer due to perceived bias from Shri Pancholia. The court concluded that the transfer order was valid and within the Commissioner's powers, as it aimed to prevent prejudice against the petitioner.

3. Pecuniary Jurisdiction Based on Taxable Turnover:
The petitioner contended that the pecuniary jurisdiction should be determined based on the taxable turnover disclosed in the return. The court rejected this argument, stating that the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer is determined by the actual taxable turnover found during the assessment, not by the figures disclosed in the return. The Commissioner's order under Rule 3(2) specified that cases with a taxable turnover exceeding Rs. 25,000 should be assessed by Shri Kolhe. As the taxable turnover for the years 1952-53 and 1953-54 was found to be Rs. 44,000 and Rs. 52,000 respectively, Shri Kolhe had the jurisdiction to assess the petitioner.

4. Petitioner's Conduct and Estoppel:
The court noted that the petitioner initially requested the transfer to avoid perceived bias from Shri Pancholia and benefited from the transfer order. The petitioner requested Shri Kolhe to reopen the assessment for the year 1951-52 and did not challenge his jurisdiction until after the assessments for 1952-53 and 1953-54 were completed. The court held that the petitioner was estopped from challenging Shri Kolhe's jurisdiction after having accepted and benefited from the transfer order. The petitioner's conduct indicated mala fides, and he was not entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. Availability of an Alternative Remedy:
Although the court did not delve deeply into this issue, it was noted that the petitioner had an alternative and equally effective remedy of appeal and revision under the Sales Tax Act. The court suggested that the petitioner should have pursued these remedies instead of filing a writ petition.

Conclusion:
The petitions were dismissed on merits, with the court affirming the jurisdiction of Shri Kolhe to assess the petitioner and the validity of the transfer order issued by the Commissioner. The petitioner's conduct and the availability of alternative remedies further supported the dismissal. The petitions were dismissed with costs, and the advocate's fees were taxed at Rs. 100.

← Previous Next →