1960 (1) TMI 17 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of sales tax for the year 1953-54 by Sales Tax Officer.
2. Quashing of assessment orders P-2 and P-4.
3. Jurisdictional issue regarding assessment by the second respondent.
4. Compelling adjustment or refund of tax amount collected.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the year 1953-54 by the Sales Tax Officer based on a total net turnover, despite no return submitted by him. The petitioner contended that a portion of the turnover was from inter-State sales. Subsequently, he submitted a return for inter-State sales to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in Madras. The petitioner sought to quash the assessment orders P-2 and P-4 and requested an appropriate writ from the State of Kerala to adjust the claim with the second respondent or refund the amount.

2. A preliminary objection was raised concerning the jurisdiction of the court to quash assessment order P-2 since the second respondent was outside the territorial limits. The petitioner argued that if the order was illegal, relief could be sought against the authority within the state. However, the court found that exhibit P-2 was not lacking in jurisdiction as it implied the delivery of goods in Madras State, constituting inter-State sales. As a result, the preliminary objection prevailed, and the petitioner failed to provide sufficient grounds to challenge the assessment order.

3. The petitioner contended that the first respondent should adjust the tax amount collected with the second respondent or refund it based on section 72 of the Indian Contract Act. A case precedent was cited to support this argument. However, the court noted that the assessment order P-2 could not be quashed, unlike in the cited case. As a result, the court denied the petitioner any remedy, emphasizing that the petitioner had remedies available in both jurisdictions for improper assessment but did not avail himself of them. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to establish grounds for challenging the assessment orders and seeking relief under the Indian Contract Act. The court emphasized the availability of remedies in both jurisdictions for improper assessment, which the petitioner did not utilize, leading to the denial of any remedy in this case.