1996 (6) TMI 311 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Works Contract and Leasing Tax, Circle I, Jaipur.
2. Validity of the ex parte assessment order dated November 24, 1995.
3. Dismissal of the application under section 38 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.
4. Alternative remedy and maintainability of the application under section 8 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Works Contract and Leasing Tax, Circle I, Jaipur:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Works Contract and Leasing Tax, Circle I, Jaipur, asserting that the proper assessing authority should be the Commercial Taxes Officer, Works Contract and Leasing Tax, Circle II, Jaipur, based on the location of their worksite and the office of their advocate. The Tribunal found that the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle I, Jaipur, lacked jurisdiction as per Notification No. S.O. 79 issued on July 19, 1995, which allocated jurisdiction to Circle II for the areas in question. Consequently, all proceedings and orders by the respondent were deemed without jurisdiction and void ab initio.

2. Validity of the ex parte assessment order dated November 24, 1995:
The ex parte assessment order was passed on November 24, 1995, after the petitioner's advocate sought adjournment due to his senior's illness. The Tribunal noted that the advocate had a bona fide impression that the adjournment would be granted and did not inform the petitioner of the hearing date. The Tribunal found sufficient and reasonable cause for the non-appearance of the petitioner and held that the ex parte assessment order and the subsequent order dismissing the application under section 38 of the Act were not sustainable.

3. Dismissal of the application under section 38 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994:
The application under section 38 was dismissed on February 16, 1996, without considering the reasons provided by the petitioner for non-appearance. The Tribunal observed that the respondent did not address the averments made in the application and affidavits. Given the circumstances, the Tribunal found the dismissal of the application under section 38 to be unjustified.

4. Alternative remedy and maintainability of the application under section 8 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995:
The department raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of appeal and, therefore, the application under section 8 should be dismissed. The Tribunal rejected this objection, stating that section 8(3) of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995, allows for an application involving a substantial question of law relating to the jurisdiction of any authority under the specified Act. Since the petitioner's application involved a challenge to the jurisdiction of the assessing authority, the Tribunal held that the application was maintainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the application under section 8 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995, declaring all proceedings and orders by the respondent as void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal directed that the authority having proper jurisdiction may take action against the petitioner in accordance with the law.