1993 (12) TMI 215 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Sales Tax Officer to make an assessment order during the pendency of a reference under section 23 of the Act.
2. Whether the Sales Tax Officer should have stayed the assessment proceedings until the disposal of the reference.
3. Judicial propriety and ethics in the conduct of the Sales Tax Officer during assessment proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contended that the Sales Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to assess during the pendency of a reference under section 23 of the Act. The Court held that the operation of the Tribunal's order is not suspended by a reference to the Court, indicating that the Sales Tax Officer had the authority to resume assessment proceedings directed by the Commissioner. Therefore, the assessment order made by the Sales Tax Officer was deemed to be within jurisdiction.

2. While not legally obligated to stay the assessment proceedings, the Sales Tax Officer's haste in resuming assessment was criticized for lacking judicial propriety. The Court noted that despite the reference pending since 1962, the Sales Tax Officer proceeded with assessment. The Court emphasized that although the Officer had the authority to assess, waiting for the Court's decision on the reference would have been more appropriate.

3. The Court highlighted the importance of judicial propriety and ethics in the conduct of the Sales Tax Officer. It was observed that the Officer's rush to make the assessment order, potentially invalid if the reference outcome contradicted the remand order, could be seen as an attempt to hinder the reference process. The Court expressed that the Officer's actions could lead to unnecessary appeals and delays, urging the taxing authorities to refrain from passing any orders until the reference was resolved.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that while the Sales Tax Officer had jurisdiction to assess, his actions lacked judicial propriety. The Court emphasized the need for ethical conduct and proper consideration of all relevant materials during assessment proceedings. The parties were left to bear their own costs, and the security deposit was to be refunded to the petitioner.