KEYEMYES TRADING AGENCY Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the petitioner in O. P. No. 4990 of 1992-R against the judgment of a learned single Judge. The learned single Judge dismissed the original petition at the first stage itself. The appellant is an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The case highlighted in the original petition is that exhibits P13 to P24 are illegal and are liable to be quashed in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further wanted a declaration that the turnover of the 2nd respondent under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act for 1983-84 to 1988-89 and assessed in his hands cannot be assessed in the hands of the appellant for the very same assessment years and the proceedings initiated for the said purpose are arbitrary, unauthorised and null and void. In these circumstances, he wanted this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the first respondent to desist from proceeding with the processes taken for assessment evidenced by exhibits P13 to P24.

(2.) THE learned single Judge found that exhibits P13 to P24 are pre-assessment notices for assessment of sales tax for the period from 1983-84 to 1988-89 and found that even if the appellant has got a good case on merits, it is not proper and appropriate for this Court to interfere with the jurisdiction exercised by an authority under the Sales Tax Act in initiating proceedings for the purpose of assessment for certain years.

(3.) COUNSEL referred us to the decisions reported in AIR 1961 SC 372, (1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) (Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer), [1985] 59 STC 277 (SC); (1985) 3 SCC 230 (Mcdowell & Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer) and AIR 1968 SC 49; [1968] 67 ITR 11 (SC) (Commissioner of Income-tax v. A. Raman and Co. ). All those decisions have got special features. We cannot say that there is a general dictum that this Court should interfere with the pre-assessment notices on the ground that the result of the proceedings started with the pre-assessment notices will be in favour of the assessee. We cannot arrogate ourselves to the position of the assessing authority or any appellate authority under the statute or as an authority who is deciding the question in a tax revision case. We are exercising a special jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India and in that view, it is not possible for us to interfere with the pre-assessment notices issued to the appellant. The learned single Judge considered the relevant aspects in the right perspective, though briefly. In the circumstance, we dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed. .