9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (3) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the Punjab Government notification, dated 11th June, 1963, this officer had been appointed by the State of Punjab under section 3 read with section 2(a) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act to assist the Excise and Taxation Commissioner and to frame assessments in the whole of the State of Punjab. Shri Kuldip Singh Jaspal was later on succeeded by the respondent Shri S. K. Jain before whom appearance was entered on behalf of the petitioner-firm. In the course of the proceedings before him, he called upon the petitioner to produce its account books and evidence of certain transactions. On conclusion of the proceedings before him, on 24th August, 1964, the respondent No. 1 made the assessment order (annexure A-2), by which he assessed the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 read with section 2(a) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, and he has been invested with powers to frame assessment in the entire State of Punjab. Shri Sachar has, however, contended that since the petitioner-firm has its place of business at Ludhiana, it was registered with the Assessing Authority at Ludhiana and the respondent No.1 had no power to deal with its returns and take up its case for assessment. In this connection, he placed reliance on Messrs. Kishan Chand and Company v. S. K. Jain[1965] 16 S.T.C. 521; 67 P.L.R. 465. , which was followed by Narula, J., in Mansa Ram v. J. B. Rajyana[1966]18 S.T.C. 57; 67 P.L.R. 1056. In the latter case it was held that once a Sales Tax Officer issues a notice and returns are filed before him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Punjab would not become void merely because no order transferring the proceedings was made by the competent Authority. This is evident from the following observations appearing at page 471 of the Report: "We do not mean, and of course we do not hold, that an assessment made by the respondent in respect of a dealer whose place of business is at Amritsar would be open to be struck down as invalid for want of inherent jurisdiction, and this, not even if the assessment proceedings had properly been commenced before the Assessing Authority functioning at Amritsar, nor do we hold that an irregular manner of seizing of an assessment proceeding would by itself attract jurisdictional infirmity necessarily vitiating a final assessment order." In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
