1982 (8) TMI 205 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Sales Tax Officer to assess the General Manager of North Eastern Railway.
2. Validity of assessment orders for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65.
3. Dismissal of reference application by the revising authority.
4. Interpretation of the statutory period of limitation for making reference applications.
5. Relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The judgment of the Allahabad High Court involved two petitions filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax concerning the assessment of the General Manager of North Eastern Railway as a dealer for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65. The Sales Tax Officer assessed the General Manager, who challenged the assessment on the grounds of not being a dealer and lack of jurisdiction of the assessing authority. The appellate authority remanded the case to re-examine the dealer status and jurisdiction. The revising authority held that the assessment orders were without jurisdiction due to the absence of a declared principal place of business and lack of determination by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on the assessing authority. The Commissioner sought a reference to the High Court, which was dismissed by the Additional Judge (Revisions) on the basis of the statutory limitation period of 120 days for making references.

The petitioner contended that the reference application was within the prescribed limitation period and should have been decided on merit, regardless of the elapsed time. The Court acknowledged the error in dismissing the reference application based on limitation but concluded that no relief was warranted. The revising authority's order highlighted the lack of jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer in making the assessments, as the General Manager had not declared the principal place of business. The revising authority's decision was supported by a previous judgment regarding a similar issue for the assessment year 1965-66. Consequently, the assessments for the years 1963-64 and 1964-65 were deemed rightly quashed by the revising authority due to jurisdictional issues.

The Court emphasized that even if the order dismissing the reference application was quashed, it would result in treating the application as a revision due to an amendment in the law. The judgment clarified the legal position regarding the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer in assessing the General Manager and upheld the revising authority's decision. Ultimately, the petitions were dismissed with costs, denying the relief sought under Article 226 of the Constitution.