1995 (11) TMI 426 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Sales Tax Officer under M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958

Analysis:
The case involved an application under section 44(2) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, where the assessee sought to challenge the liability of paying sales tax determined by the Additional Sales Tax Officer. The applicant, a lime manufacturer, was found liable for sales tax from November 3, 1975, to February 27, 1980, despite not being registered as a dealer under the Act before February 28, 1980. The dispute arose when the applicant contended that the Additional Sales Tax Officer did not have the jurisdiction to determine the liability, as it required prior approval from the Sales Tax Officer. The appeal process involved appeals before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal, where the jurisdiction issue was raised. However, the Tribunal declined to consider the objection since it was not raised before the Additional Sales Tax Officer during the assessment.

The applicant then filed an application under section 44(1) of the Act seeking a statement of the case and reference of the questions, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the applicant renewed the prayer under section 44(2) of the Act, seeking a reference on the questions of law proposed. The questions raised in the reference application pertained to the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer to determine the liability of the assessee and the legality of the assessment made by the assessing authority.

During the hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant argued that the question of jurisdiction was fundamental to the case and should have been entertained by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the Deputy Government Advocate contended that since the jurisdiction issue was not raised before the lower authority, the assessee had no right to raise it before the Tribunal. The Tribunal's order in Appeal No. 203-iv/84 did not conclusively address the jurisdictional question, leading to the application seeking a reference of the questions to the High Court for opinion.

The High Court, after considering the arguments and precedent, found that the questions raised did arise from the Tribunal's order and needed to be referred for opinion. Consequently, the High Court allowed the reference application, directing the Tribunal to state the case and refer the questions without delay. The judgment emphasized the importance of addressing jurisdictional issues and ensuring a fair hearing for all parties involved in tax assessment disputes under the Act.