Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 1987 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1987 (8) TMI 408 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues: Jurisdiction of assessing authority over business premises relocation
The judgment of the Karnataka High Court in 1987 dealt with the issue of jurisdiction of the assessing authority over the petitioner's business premises relocation for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86. The petitioner had shifted his business location after the close of the relevant years, prompting a dispute regarding which assessing officer had jurisdiction. The key question was whether the petitioner could choose to be assessed by the officer having jurisdiction over the new business location in Ulsoor, Bangalore. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, particularly section 2(f) defining the "assessing authority" and rule 5 of the Act. It was noted that the jurisdiction of the assessing authority is determined based on pecuniary limits and the area over which the officer has jurisdiction to assess, as outlined in section 3-B of the Act. The petitioner presented a notification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 3-B, designating the Commercial Tax Officer, XII Circle, as the authority to assess the petitioner for the years in question. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction of officers is contingent upon the allocation of cases as per the areas specified under section 3-B of the Act. Given that the Commissioner had already issued an order conferring jurisdiction on the Commercial Tax Officer, XII Circle, Bangalore, to assess the petitioner for the relevant years, the court held that the petitioner did not have the discretion to opt for assessment by the officer overseeing the new business location in Ulsoor. Ultimately, the court concluded that since the jurisdiction had been determined by the Commissioner under section 3-B, there was no justification to interfere with the decision. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, affirming the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer, XII Circle, Bangalore, to assess the petitioner for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86.
|