9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (4) TMI 1013 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) was an appropriate Assessing Authority for the respondent in view of the notification dated May 19, 1989 read with the definition of appropriate Assessing Authority under clause (c) of rule 2 of the Rules and whether Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) had concurrent jurisdiction to act as an Assessing Authority with the officer in whose circle the respondent was located and was competent to assess the respondent? Held that - The language of the notification dated May 19, 1989, is itself absolutely clear, whereby the Government of Haryana has appointed the Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) to assist the Commissioner, Haryana and has further authorised him to perform the duties of the Assessing Authority within the meaning of clause (a) of section 2 of the Act, in addition to his duties as the Assessing Authority in a particular circle. Apart from the above, the present case is squarely covered by the decision in Devi Dass s case 1972 (5) TMI 53 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , wherein the Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) has been authorized to perform his duties of Assessing Authority within the meaning of clause (a) of section 2 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act. Thus question answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) as Assessing Authority. 2. Interpretation of conflicting judgments by different High Courts. Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) as Assessing Authority The case involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) as the Assessing Authority for a company assessed for tax evasion. The Tribunal had quashed the assessment orders, stating that the Assessing Authority was not appropriate. The Revenue argued that the Excise and Taxation Officer had the necessary jurisdiction, citing a notification authorizing their duties as the Assessing Authority. The counsel for the assessee contended that the officer lacked jurisdiction over the specific circle in question. The High Court analyzed the notification dated May 19, 1989, and previous judgments, concluding that the Excise and Taxation Officer was authorized to act as the Assessing Authority within the meaning of the Act. The Court upheld the Revenue's argument, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. Issue 2: Interpretation of conflicting judgments by different High Courts The second issue revolved around conflicting judgments by different High Courts. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in Devi Dass Gopal Krishan v. State of Punjab [1973] 31 STC 536 and questioned its validity in light of a Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Sarjoo Prasad Ram Kumar [1976] 37 STC 533. The High Court distinguished the facts of the Supreme Court case, stating that it did not apply to the present scenario. The Court concluded that the facts of the Supreme Court judgment were not relevant to the case at hand. Therefore, the second issue was deemed inapplicable, and the reference was decided in favor of the Revenue, directing the Tribunal to reconsider the case on its merits. In summary, the High Court clarified the jurisdiction of the Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti-Evasion Squad) as the Assessing Authority and resolved the issue in favor of the Revenue. Additionally, the Court addressed the conflicting judgments by different High Courts, determining their inapplicability to the present case. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on the merits after providing both parties with an opportunity to present their case.
|
