9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the proceedings commenced at least on 19th November, 1970, when the partner of the dealer-firm produced the books of account before Shri Minocha. The case was thereafter adjourned from time to time and the hearing was concluded on 5th April, 1971. Thereafter Shri Minocha passed the assessment order on 10th June, 1971. The gross turnover of the dealer was computed at Rs. 10,46,170.48 and after deducting the tax-free sales, it was found that the dealer was liable to pay sales tax of Rs. 4,500 and penalty of Rs. 500. An appeal was filed by the dealer to the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, against the said order of Shri Minocha. No question was raised by the dealer with regard to the jurisdiction of Shri Minocha to pass the assessment order. After the appeal was dismissed, a revision was filed before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi, but with no success. A second revision was thereafter filed before the Financial Commissioner when, for the first time, a contention was raised on behalf of the dealer to the effect that as notice under form S.T. XIV had been issued by Shri B.L. Gupta, therefore, Shri Minocha had no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order. This contention wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case was an unregistered one and sub-section (2) of section 11 which is applicable, reads as under: "(2) If upon information which has come into his possession the Commissioner is satisfied that any dealer, who has been liable to pay tax under this Act in respect of any period but has failed to get himself registered, the Commissioner shall proceed in such manner as may be prescribed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of tax due from the dealer in respect of such period and all subsequent periods and in making such assessment shall give the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard; and the Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that the default was made without reasonable cause, direct that the dealer shall pay by way of penalty in addition to the amount of tax so assessed a sum not exceeding one and a half times of that amount." Though various provisions of the Act including section 11(2) refer only to the Commissioner as being the appropriate authority, section 15 of the Act gives jurisdiction to the Commissioner to delegate his powers under the Act to any person appointed under section 3 to assist him. In other words, officers like Sales Tax Officer, Assistan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the dealer fell within the territory of which the assessing authority of ward 9 had territorial jurisdiction but by virtue of the aforesaid order of 1968, Shri Minocha had also been given authority in respect of the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi including ward 9. Therefore, in respect of ward 9, there were two assessing authorities, viz., Shri Gupta and Shri Minocha. It is further submitted that on a correct interpretation of section 11 of the Act, jurisdiction is not assumed by the issuance of any notice in form S.T. XIV. Any officer having territorial jurisdiction could pass an assessment order. In the present case, both Shri Gupta and Shri Minocha had territorial jurisdiction but the assessment proceedings were conducted only by Shri Minocha who, after giving full opportunity to the dealer, passed the impugned assessment order. The learned counsel submits that merely because notice in form S.T. XIV had been issued by Shri Gupta, does not mean that Shri Minocha had no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order specially in view of the fact that the two officers did not concurrently exercise their jurisdiction to pass an assessment order. There is nothing on the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ea. A dealer has a right to be taxed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He has to be given adequate opportunity to represent his case and an assessment order can be passed after the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Act and the Rules are complied with. It is not for the dealer, however, to choose as to who has to pass the assessment order. It is for the Commissioner to decide as to who is to be the assessing authority. Rule 2(b) gives jurisdiction to every Sales Tax Officer within whose jurisdiction the dealer's place of business is situated, to pass the assessment order. If there are more than one Sales Tax Officer in respect of the place of business of a dealer, then each of them will have the jurisdiction to assess but it is not for the dealer to decide as to which one of them will exercise the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction to assess under rule 2(b) is determined by only one factor and that 'is whether the dealer is carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer. Rule 2(b) does not contemplate, where dealer has a place of business in Delhi, a Sales Tax Officer being nominated even though that Sales Tax Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the work to each Sales Tax Officer and, in this regard, he had the power to transfer the assessment from one assessing authority appointed for the area to another similarly appointed authority. Writ Petition No. 19 of 1967 was accordingly dismissed. In Writ Petition No. 18 of 1967, there were two Sales Tax Officers involved, one Shri U.P. Jain, who was Sales Tax Officer of Ward No. 15 and the other was Shri S.K. Mehra of Ward No. 28. It was, however, found that by a specific order dated 30th August, 1965, the Commissioner had declared Shri U.R. Jain as the assessing authority in respect of M/s. Siya Ram Bros. In view of this specific order having been passed by the Commissioner, the learned Judge held that the other Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to assess or levy penalty or issue notice. The said decision is of little assistance to the petitioner in the present case. There is no specific order on the record, like the one which was passed in Siya Ram's case (C.W. Nos. 18, 19 and 143 of 1967 decided on 21st December, 1972-Delhi High Court), to the effect that one of the two assessing officers having concurrent jurisdiction, was specifically declared as the assessing authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority from Chandigarh were quashed because a serious prejudice was sought to be caused but the High Court categorically came to the conclusion that the assessment made by an Assessing Authority other than the one at Amritsar, cannot be struck down as invalid for want of inherent jurisdiction. The subject-matter before the Punjab High Court was a notice which was issued during the pendency of the assessment proceedings. In the present case, however, the assessment itself had been framed by Shri Minocha, and no objection having been taken with regard to his jurisdiction, therefore, applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision in Kishan Chand's case [1965] 16 STC 521 (Punj), it would follow that such an assessment cannot be struck down as being invalid for want of inherent jurisdiction. This is for the simple reason that Shri Minocha was also the assessing authority in respect of the area in which the dealer carried on his business. Learned counsel also referred to the case of Madanlal Mahawar v. Commercial Tax Officer [1965] 16 STC 1071 (Cal). We do not find how this can be of any assistance to him because it was held that the assessment made without serving of notice in form S.T. X ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show that Shri Gupta had any discussion with the dealer or its representative with regard to its assessment. Shri Chawla, learned counsel for the petitioner, has rightly drawn our attention to the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shyam Manohar Dixit v. Sales Tax Officer [1970] 26 STC 439, wherein it was held that once a person is appointed as a Sales Tax Officer in a circle, then he automatically becomes the assessing authority in respect of all the dealers carrying on business within the territorial limits of his circle by virtue of the provisions of the Act and he is empowered to make the assessment under the Act. It was further observed that no separate authorisation is needed from the State Government empowering such Sales Tax Officer to make the assessment under the Act because he derives that power from the provisions of the Act itself. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision to the present case, we find that with the appointment of Shri Minocha as the assessing authority for the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi, he became empowered to make assessment of the dealers carrying on business in the Union Territory of Delhi and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner may appoint a person to be Commissioner of Sales Tax together with such other persons to 'assist him' as the Chief Commissioner thinks fit. Rule 2(f) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951, defines the expression 'Sales Tax Officer' as the person appointed by that designation by the Chief Commissioner under section 3 of the Act to assist the Commissioner. Under rule 88 of the said Rules, the power of superintendence over the administration and the collection of the sales tax leviable under the Act is vested in the Chief Commissioner and subject to his general control and superintendence 'the Commissioner shall control all officers empowered under the Act'. The appointment, therefore, of any officer as Sales Tax Officer by the Chief Commissioner under section 3 of the Act does not confer by its own force jurisdiction on such an officer to initiate or conduct proceedings under the Act because the appointment by the Chief Commissioner has to be in terms 'to assist the Commissioner'. It merely enables such an officer to exercise jurisdiction in relation to the Act either with reference to the territory or with reference to the class of work which may be specifically entrusted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther an order of transfer nor any order of delegation was necessary to enable Shri H.S. Birdi to take seizin of the matters, which were previously being dealt with by the Sales Tax Officer, Ward No. 14." We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations of the learned Judge. Shri Minocha also, like in New Fields case [1977] 16 DSTC H-1. was appointed as an assessing officer (SIB) and, therefore given the jurisdiction to assess the dealers in the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi. He was, therefore, an assessing authority who was competent to pass an assessment order. No doubt no specific order by the Commissioner is on the record authorising Shri Minocha to assess the dealer but the general order appointing Shri Minocha as the assessing authority in respect of the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi gave him the jurisdiction to assess the dealer. No specific order in this regard was necessary or called for specially when Shri Gupta had taken no effective steps to assess the dealer. For the aforesaid reasons, question No. 1 is answered in the negative and in favour of the Commissioner of Sales Tax. As regards question No. 2, we are firmly of the opinion that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
