9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealer-assessee's) books of accounts. The A.C.T.O. (Anti-Evasion), thus, proceeded to make his best judgment assessment on the basis of the available material, namely, the books of accounts maintained by the dealer-assessee and Shri Hari Ram Chakkiwala and the facts regarding which the admission was made by the dealer-assessee. The periods involved, as stated above are October 19, 1971 to November 4, 1972; and November 5, 1972 to October 25, 1973. The best judgment assessment made by the A.C.T.O. on February 6, 1972 was upheld by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner, by his order dated June 12, 1974. Two separate revisions were filed before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer ("the Board" herein) regarding the aforesaid two periods. On behalf of the dealer-assessee, the following three contentions were raised before the Board: (1) that the A.C.T.O. (Anti-Evasion), Bikaner had no jurisdiction over the dealer-assessee, which fell within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jodhpur. (2) that no sufficient opportunity was afforded to the dealer-assessee to present its case and rebut the basis on which the A.C.T.O. had made hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to go on facts under section 14(2) or its jurisdiction is restricted to legal questions only? (xi) Whether, the Board of Revenue was justified in hearing the revision for both the years so as to deprive the right of special appeal of the petitioner? (xii) Whether, there was any material on record to justify the penalty or to prove the offence of the assessment? (xiii) Whether, the estimation of turnover is inconsistent and contrary to the evidence on record and not supported by any legal evidence or material or is unreasonable or perverse? " The Board, by its order dated October 27, 1978, referred questions Nos. (i) and (ii) for the opinion of this Court. It declined to refer questions Nos. (iii) to (xiii). The reference applications under section 15(2) of the Act, which have been registered as Sales Tax Cases Nos. 35 of 1980 and 34 of 1980, have been filed in respect of the periods: October 19, 1971 to November 4, 1972 and November 5, 1972 to October 25, 1973, respectively by the dealer-assessee. It was prayed that the Board may be directed to state the case and refer questions Nos. (iii) to (xiii), which also arise out of its order dated February 27, 1978. The Board h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould assume jurisdiction to assess the dealer-assessee without any order under rule 52 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 (for short "the Rules"). It is not in dispute before us that at the relevant time, i.e., for the aforesaid two periods, the C.T.O., Special Circle, Jodhpur was the assessing authority of the dealer-assessee. He received the returns of the dealer-assessee in respect of the aforesaid periods. Mr. Rajendra Mehta, learned counsel for the dealer-assessee has placed strong reliance on Notification No. F. 3(a)(28) Tax/CCT/67/130 dated October 23, 1967, and on its basis, contended that the best judgment assessment, passed by the A.C.T.O. (Anti-Evasion), Bikaner was absolutely without jurisdiction and therefore, the best judgment assessment is void. On the other hand, Mr. K.C. Bhandari, Standing Counsel for the Sales Tax Department, argued that in view of Notification No. F. 2(a)(29)Tax/CCT/67/131 dated October 23, 1967, the A.C.T.O. (Anti-Evasion), Bikaner had jurisdiction to pass the best judgment assessment against the dealer-assessee. In support of this, he placed reliance on Alcobex Metals (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner 1978 RRD 169. We have bestowed our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d then, is as under: "In pursuance of rule 4 of the said Rules it is also hereby directed that the Commercial Taxes Officers, Special Circles, shall have jurisdiction over the following category of dealers, namely: All manufacturers, and importers whose turnover in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71 was not less than 5 lacs and 25 lacs respectively: Provided that the Commercial Taxes Officers, Special Circles shall exercise jurisdiction subject to the provisions of clause (ii) below: (ii) The C.T.Os., Anti-Evasion Circle, Ganganagar, Jaipur and Kota shall have jurisdiction over dealers in whose case any evasion of tax or concealment of liability to tax has been detected by him or by any officer not below the rank of Commercial Taxes Inspector of his Circle, in respect of the dealer's year of account to which such evasion or concealment relates......... " It is clear from the aforesaid notification that the C.T.O., Special Circle, Jodhpur had jurisdiction over the manufacturers whose turnover in the previous year relating to the assessment year 1970-71 was not less than five lacs. This is not disputed by Mr. K.C. Bhandari, learned counsel for the Sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petent to exercise jurisdiction over the dealer-assessee as the conditions laid down in clause (ii) of the first notification are fulfilled. The C.T.O. or the A.C.T.O. qua the dealer is the officer who has jurisdiction over such dealer. The Commissioner has been empowered under rules 3 and 4 of the Rules to fix the jurisdiction of the various officers of the department and to distribute business amongst them. By virtue of the powers given to him under rules 3 and 4 of the Rules, the Commissioner issued the notification regarding jurisdiction and distribution of business amongst various officers. It is in exercise of that power that the C.T.O. (AntiEvasion) and A.C.T.O. (Anti-Evasion) for various circles in the State were appointed and overriding jurisdiction is permissible so far as the C.T.Os. and A.C.T.Os. (Special Circle) and C.T.O. (Anti-Evasion) are concerned. So far as the first notification is concerned, under clause (i) thereof, in respect of a particular category of dealer, the C.T.Os., Special Circle, have been conferred jurisdiction, but that jurisdiction has not been made exercisable by them if the C.T.O. (Anti-Evasion) detects evasion of tax or concealment of liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed jurisdiction. It follows from what has been stated that no benefit or advantage can be derived by the learned counsel for the Sales Tax Department on the basis of clause (a) of the second notification, for, by means of that jurisdiction over the wards forming part of circle, over the dealers on whom the C.T.O. had exercised jurisdiction, the A.C.T.Os. (Anti-Evasion), were conferred jurisdiction in respect of the dealers of ward/wards forming part of the circle against whom a case of evasion of tax or concealment of tax has been detected by them and so, the question of exercise of jurisdiction by the A.C.T.O. (Anti-Evasion), Bikaner, in pursuance of the second notification over the dealer-assessee, does not arise. In Alcobex Metals (P.) Ltd.'s case 1978 RRD 169 in a revision under section 14(2) of the Act, in connection with an order passed under section 12B of the Act by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur, one of the contentions raised on behalf of the dealer-assessee was that as there was no evasion of tax by the dealer, the A.C.T.O. (Anti-Evasion) did not acquire jurisdiction over the dealer and the case should have been transferred to the assessing autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In our considered opinion, the view taken by the Board is not correct, for, it did not consider the effect of para 2(ii) of the first notification by which the C.T.O. (Anti-Evasion) alone could acquire jurisdiction over the dealers of special circle in case of evasion of tax or concealment of liability of tax is detected by such officer. We are disposed to think that in view of para 2(ii) of the first notification (the relevant part has already been reproduced), the A.C.T.O. (Anti-Evasion), Bikaner could not exercise jurisdiction over the dealer-assessee, as an assessing authority, as the C.T.O., Special Circle, Jodhpur exercised jurisdiction over him, as its turnover in respect of the relevant accounting years was more than five lacs. It was not canvassed by the learned counsel, appearing for the sales tax department, that any specific order under rule 52 of the Rules in favour of the A.C.T.O. (Anti-Evasion), Bikaner was passed by the Commissioner. In this view of the matter, the best judgment assessment made by the A.C.T.O. (AntiEvasion), Bikaner is by an assessing authority, who had no jurisdiction to do so. The best judgment assessment being without jurisdiction, deserves to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
