9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (11) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med in appeal by the Assistant Commissioner. The first revision application was filed before the Deputy Commissioner. The contentions raised before the Deputy Commissioner by the respondent were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 28th March, 1969. 3.. Being aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent filed a second revision application before the Tribunal. One of the contentions raised before the Tribunal was to the effect that the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, had no jurisdiction to assess the respondent because there was no valid transfer of assessment proceedings from the Sales Tax Officer, B-Ward, to the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch. This contention was accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order of assessment passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, and the subsequent orders passed in appeal and revision by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Mr. Patel, who appeared for the respondent before the Tribunal, stated before the Tribunal that he should not be taken to have given up the other contentions raised by him before the Tribunal in respect of the merits of the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d conditions as it may impose, by notification in the Official Gazette, delegate to the Collector the powers conferred on it under clause (c) of sub-section (1) to appoint persons to assist the Collector, and sub-section (2) to specify the limits of the area which shall be within the jurisdiction of such persons." Thereafter by an order dated 18th May, 1953 the Collector of Sales Tax delegated his powers and duties, inter alia, under sections 14 and 15 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 to all Sales Tax Officers. On 20th August, 1955 a notification was issued by the State Government under section 3(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 which is as follows: "FINANCE DEPARTMENT Sachivalaya, Bombay, 20th August, 1955. No. STO. 2255/135393-XIX.-In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 3 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (Bom. III of 1953), Government is pleased to direct that the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax, Enforcement Branch, and the Sales Tax Officers, Enforcement Branch, shall have jurisdiction over the whole State of Bombay in respect of such dealers as are from time to time assigned to them for all or any of the purposes of the Bombay Sales Tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of this Act in exercise of the aforesaid jurisdiction by the said officers shall be deemed to have been validly and effectually exercised, performed, done or taken and shall not be called in question on the ground only that the jurisdiction was not duly conferred on the said officers under the said notifications or that the Collector, the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay State, Bombay, or the said Assistant Collector of Sales Tax was not duly invested with powers so to assign dealers to the said officers." As a result, the jurisdiction conferred on the Sales Tax Officers, Enforcement Branch, inter alia, under the notification of 20th August, 1955 and assignments made by the Collector or the Additional Collector of Sales Tax, Bombay City of dealers to Sales Tax Officers, Enforcement Branch, are all validated. 7.. It is the contention of Mr. Jetly, learned Advocate for the applicant, that the order of assignment in the present case has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax by virtue of the powers conferred on him under the said notification of 20th August, 1955 read with section 52 of the said Act. Hence the assignment of the case of the respondent to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in respect of orders which were already passed prior to the coming into operation of section 52. The present order of assignment, therefore, is validly passed under section 52 read with the said notification of 20th August, 1955. 10.. The order of assignment is passed on 23rd January, 1961 after the coming into operation of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. Under the new Act of 1959 the posts of Collector and Additional Collector of Sales Tax are abolished. Instead, the new posts created are those of Commissioner of Sales Tax, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, etc. The present order of assignment is passed by Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax. It is nobody's case that he did not have the power to pass an order of assignment under the notification of 20th August, 1955 read with section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 because of his new designation. 11.. Under section 77(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 notwithstanding the repeal of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 "those laws (including any earlier law continued in force under any provisions thereof), and all rules, regulations, orders, notifications, forms and notices issued under those laws and in force immediately befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the order of assignment caused any hardship or created any difficulties for the respondent. The order of transfer was from one Sales Tax Officer to another Sales Tax Officer in the same city and possibly in the same building. Nothing has been pointed out to us which would indicate that the respondent was put to any disadvantage as a result of such a transfer of his proceedings. It is true that the assignment was made to the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch. But there is nothing to show that this by itself caused any harm or embarrassment to the respondent. The Enforcement Department had already paid a visit to the respondent's place of business on 8th November, 1960 before the order of assignment was passed. Hence the mere fact that the order of assignment was to the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, cannot be said to have caused any hardship to the respondent. At least none was pointed out to us. The present order, therefore, is not an order which invites an application of the principles of natural justice. 13.. In the case of Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India reported in [1957] 31 ITR 565 (SC) the Supreme Court was required to consider the provisions of section 5( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransfer is from any Income-tax Officer to any other Income-tax Officer, whose offices are situate in the same city, locality or place. 15.. The provisions of this section came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Kashiram Aggarwalla v. Union of India reported in [1965] 56 ITR 14 (SC). In that case the order of transfer was from an Incometax Officer, D-Ward to an Income-tax Officer of another ward in the same city. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the proviso to section 127(1) merely dispensed with the requirement of a reasonable opportunity of hearing being given to the assessee. It did not dispense with the requirement of recording reasons for the order. This submission was negatived by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that where the transfer order is from one officer to another officer in the same city, there is hardly any occasion for mentioning any reasons as such because such transfers are invariably made on the grounds of administrative convenience. In principle, therefore, neither a notice is necessary nor is it necessary to record any reasons for such transfer. The Supreme Court in that case has referred to its earlier d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s follows: "30. (1) Within sixty days from the making of an order of assessment either with or without penalty or the passing of any other order under this Act, any person may, in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority against such order." It is a moot point whether "any other order" should be read ejusdem generis with "an order of assessment" or would include an order of transfer of proceedings. We will assume that it includes an order of transfer. But an order need not be a speaking order simply because an appeal lies from it. Hence it would not be correct to hold that the order of transfer should state reasons simply because it is appealable. Reasons may be required when the order causes prejudice to the assessee or possibly where there are allegations of mala fides. Such is not the present case. 19.. It was also contended by Mr. Jetly that it is not open to the respondent to challenge the order of transfer on the ground of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice because under section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 all such orders of transfer are validated. According to him, section 52 precludes such a challenge to the order of transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant notifications. In that case the High Court was required to consider whether on a true and proper interpretation of section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, had valid jurisdiction to pass the orders in question there. All these orders had been passed after the said notifications but before the coming into operation of section 52. The High Court, after analysing the provisions of section 52, observed that "the concluding portion (of section 52) makes it expressly clear that the bar to the challenge was to two things only: (1) to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Sales Tax Officers and the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax, Enforcement Branch, under the said notification dated 20th August, 1955 and the other notifications referred to earlier and the orders of assignment made thereunder by the Collector and the Additional Collector and (2) to the exercise of the power of assignment of dealers, inter alia, by the Collector and the Additional Collector". 22.. In that case, although there was a challenge to the orders on the ground of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, that challenge was negatived on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
