Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (3) TMI 1006

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tax Act, 1969. The Impugned orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the lower appellate authority and the Sales Tax Officer are hereby quashed and set aside. - 2323 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2010 - MEHTA D.A. AND DEVANI H.N. , JJ. JUDGMENT:- The judgment of the court was delivered by Ms. H. N. DEVANI J. Heard Mr. Tanvish U. Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Maithili Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. Admit. The following substantial question of law arises for determination: Whether the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal was justified in holding that the Sales Tax Officer is presumed to have necessary jurisdiction to make orders under sub-section (2)(a) of section 30AA of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tax Officer to exercise powers under section 30AA of the Act. The Tribunal, vide the impugned judgment dated September 28, 2004, dismissed the appeal. The appellant thereafter filed a miscellaneous application seeking review of the order dated September 28, 2004, inter alia, indicating that the aspect of non-existence of jurisdiction of Sales Tax Officer is not dealt with by the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated January 30, 2006 dismissed the application. Subsequently, the appellant moved a rectification application before the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal which came to be dismissed as not maintainable. Mr. Tanvish U. Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant, submitted that the powers under section 30AA of the Act are veste .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eals with cancellation of certificate of registration in certain circumstances. Section 30AA, insofar as is relevant for the purpose of the present appeal reads thus: (2)(a) Where a dealer does not furnish declaration or return for three or more consecutive periods in contravention of sub-section (1) of section 40, the Commissioner shall serve on such dealer in the prescribed manner a notice requiring him on or before the date specified therein to furnish or cause to be furnished declarations or returns for the periods specified therein. (b) Where a dealer fails to furnish declarations or returns as required by the notice served upon him under clause (a), before the expiry of the date specified therein, the Commissioner shall, withou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... kes it clear that powers under section 30AA have been delegated by the Commissioner of Sales Tax to all Assistant Commissioners of Sales Tax alone. As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, insofar as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the Tribunal was of the view that the issue regarding jurisdiction had not been raised in the first appeal and was raised for the first time in the second appeal before the Tribunal. According to the Tribunal, in view of the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 27, it was permissible for the Commissioner of Sales Tax to delegate powers under the Act to Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, to Sales Tax Officers and other officers. That the appellant has not been in a position to pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... follows that in absence of any delegation of powers as contemplated under the Act, the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make any order under section 30AA of the Act. In the circumstances, the order dated March 25, 2003 made by the concerned Sales Tax Officer, cancelling the registration of the appellant under both the Acts is clearly beyond his jurisdiction and as such cannot be sustained. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the question is answered in the negative, that is, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the Sales Tax Officer is presumed to have necessary jurisdiction to make orders under subsection (2)(a) of section 30AA of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (the Act) in absence of any order having been placed on r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates