1974 (5) TMI 106 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Validity of assessment order dated 14th March, 1961
Legality of assessment order dated 16th March, 1964

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the validity of assessment orders passed by two Sales Tax Officers. The first officer, Sri T.S. Bharti, prepared a draft assessment order on 14th March, 1961, but did not sign it as he wanted approval from the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. Before finalizing the order, Sri Bharti was transferred, and the succeeding officer, Sri R.N. Pradhan, conducted a fresh assessment and passed an order on 16th March, 1964. The dealer contended that the draft order by Sri Bharti was valid under section 7 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, making the subsequent order by Sri Pradhan invalid. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) initially ruled in favor of the dealer, setting aside Sri Pradhan's order. However, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, overturned this decision, stating that Sri Bharti's draft was incomplete and not a valid order. The case was then referred to the High Court for opinion.

The High Court analyzed the circumstances and legal precedents to determine the validity of the assessment orders. It was noted that Sri Bharti's draft order, although prepared, was not signed, indicating it was provisional and subject to changes based on the Assistant Commissioner's approval. The court cited the principle that a draft judgment is not final until formally delivered. Therefore, since Sri Bharti did not intend for the draft to be the final order, it remained incomplete. This interpretation was supported by a previous Division Bench decision. Consequently, the Court held that Sri Bharti's order was not a valid assessment order under the U.P. Sales Tax Act.

Regarding the legality of Sri Pradhan's subsequent order, the Court found it valid as there was no valid assessment order from Sri Bharti. Sri Pradhan, as the successor, had the authority to complete the assessment proceedings and issue a final order under the relevant provisions. Therefore, the Court answered both questions in the negative and in favor of the department, upholding the validity of Sri Pradhan's assessment order and awarding costs to the department.