1970 (1) TMI 69 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders under the U.P. Sales Tax Act based on lack of authorization by the State Government for the Sales Tax Officer to make assessments. Conflict between court decisions regarding the authority of Sales Tax Officers to make assessments without specific authorization.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the challenge to four assessment orders under the U.P. Sales Tax Act on the grounds that the Sales Tax Officer, Sri L.L. Merh, lacked authorization from the State Government to make assessments. The petitioner argued that the notifications appointing Sri Merh did not explicitly authorize him to assess under the Act. The key contention was whether a Sales Tax Officer required specific authorization to make assessments before the addition of rule 3-B, which explicitly authorized Sales Tax Officers to assess. The court examined the definition of "assessing authority" under section 2(a) and the relevant notifications and rules to determine the authority of Sales Tax Officers to assess.

The court analyzed the rules framed by the State Government under section 24(1) of the Act, particularly focusing on the definition of a Sales Tax Officer and the power of assessment conferred upon them. Rule 6 explicitly stated that the Sales Tax Officer shall be the assessing authority for dealers within their jurisdiction. The judgment clarified that the power to assess automatically vested in a Sales Tax Officer upon appointment to a circle, without the need for separate authorization, as per the provisions of section 7 of the Act. The court emphasized that the rules and provisions of the Act clearly designated Sales Tax Officers as assessing authorities.

The judgment discussed the interpretation of section 2(a) regarding the authorization required for a person to be considered an assessing authority. It highlighted rule 80, which conferred the power of assessment upon superior executive officers, emphasizing that Sales Tax Officers were inherently authorized to make assessments. The court rejected the argument that there was a lacuna in the law before the addition of rule 3-B, as the power to assess was inherent in the role of a Sales Tax Officer. The judgment referenced previous court decisions that supported the view that Sales Tax Officers were automatically the assessing authorities for their respective circles.

In conclusion, the court held that Sri Merh had jurisdiction to make assessments under the Act from his initial appointment as a Sales Tax Officer, and the transfer to a different circle did not affect his authority to assess. The court answered the question referred in the affirmative, affirming the authority of Sales Tax Officers to make assessments without separate authorization and directed the writ petitions to be considered based on this opinion.