9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (10) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amritsar was the competent authority to assess the petitioner-firm. This Court was accordingly approached in C.W. No. 382 of 1964, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 17th November, 1964. That judgment has since been reported as Messrs. Kishan Chand Co. v. S.K. Jain[1965] 16 S.T.C. 521; [1965] 67 P.L.R. 465. I may point out that an application for leave to appeal presented by the respondent has since been disallowed. According to the writ petition, after the Bench decision in the earlier proceedings, the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, informed the petitionerfirm as per notice dated 23rd March, 1965, that the assessment proceedings would be taken up and finalised by Shri D.P. Gupta, Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, instead of the Excise and Taxation Officer (Finance Department) as ordered by the said Commissioner on 6th March, 1965. The assessment proceedings as a result of this information, according to the writ petition, stood transferred to Mr. D.P. Gupta and no other Assessing Authority or officer is empowered to exercise jurisdiction or authority to deal with the matter or take any action or issue notice for assessment proceeding dealing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Amritsar, is to do so. As Shri D.P. Gupta, Excise and Taxation Officer, is an administrative head of the Excise and Taxation Department at Amritsar, the use of his name is only to symbolise all the Assessing Authorities of the district under his control who are equally competent to frame assessment of the petitioner-firm. The respondent having concurrent powers with Shri D.P. Gupta, Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, is fully competent to frame the assessment in question. The proceedings initiated by the respondent have not operated prejudicially to the petitioner's interest. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner-firm had submitted the return for the year 1961-62 to this respondent and as such he is the competent authority to frame assessment and issue notice of assessment. In view of these averments, it is also pleaded that there is no question of transfer of the petitioner-firm's case from the file of Shri D.P. Gupta, Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, to that of the respondent. The petitioner's application was rejected by the Assessing Authority because the intention of the petitioner-firm was clearly to cause delay in the assessment of an old case and as such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment proceedings, without another formal order of transfer by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner; and in support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the earlier Bench decision of this Court in C.W. No. 382 of 1964. On behalf of the respondent, however, it has been very strongly urged that the reported decision does not lay down that in such circumstances Shri D.P. Gupta alone has the jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment. It has further been urged that Shri D.P. Gupta Reported as Kishan Chand Co. v. S.K. Jain [1965] 16 S.T.C. 521. is only a sort of a distributing officer and all that annexure "A" was intended to convey to the petitioner was that the assessment proceedings would be held in Amritsar and not at Chandigarh, in pursuance of and in compliance with the observations of this Court in C.W. No. 382 of 1964. The jurisdiction of the respondent, Shri N.L. Murgai, has been conferred by the statute and that jurisdiction has not been and cannot be taken away as a result of annexure "A" which informs the petitioner-firm that the assessment proceedings would be taken up and finalised by Shri D.P. Gupta, Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, instead of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... light of the Supreme Court decision in Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India[1956] S.C.R. 267; 29 I.T.R. 717. and Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India[1957] S.C.R. 233; 31 I.T.R. 565., the Bench deciding C.W. No. 382 of 1964 felt inclined to take the view that prima facie the statutory scheme of the Act and the Rules made thereunder contemplate the assessment proceedings to be held at the dealer's place of business, though the place of proceedings for assessment does not go to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority. On a proper consideration and balancing of exigencies of tax collection and convenience of the assessee, the assessment proceedings may appropriately be held at a place other than the assessee's place of business. It would not be out of place at this stage to point out that in another Bench decision of this Court in writ proceedings initiated by the present petitioner, Messrs. Kishan Chand Co. v. K.K. OpalC.W. No. 2073 of 1964 decided on 25th May, 1965; [1966] 18 S.T.C. 50., it was observed that the decision in C.W. No. 382 of 1964 had proceeded on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Thus said the Court on that occasion: "There (in C.W. No. 382 of 1964) it was, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
