SHYAM MANOHAR DIXIT Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this group of four writ petitions, four assessment orders under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, all dated 20th March, 1963, have been challenged. The assessment orders were made by Sri L. L. Merh, Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur. They were challenged on the ground that Sri Merh had not been authorised by the State Government to make any assessment under the Act in accordance with section 2(a) of the Act and as such the impugned orders were without jurisdiction. In support of this contention reliance was placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Messrs Punjab Trading Company Ltd., Bhatinda [Sales Tax Reference No. 276 of 1957 decided on 11-4-1963]. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance was placed upon the decision of another Division Bench in State v. Duli Chand ([1968] 22 S.T.C. 191; A.I.R. 1967 All. 349) and the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in M/s. Agarwal Vastra Bhandar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [Misc. Case No. 51 of 1962 decided on 17-8-1966]. As the Bench hearing these petitions was of the opinion that there appeared to be a conflict between the decisions relied upon by the two sides, it referred the following question for the decision to a larger Bench : "Whether in these four cases Sri L. L. Merh, Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur, had jurisdiction to pass the four assessment orders dated 20th March, 1963 ?" That is how these petitions have now come before this Full Bench.

(2.) THE whole argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is based upon the definition of the term "assessing authority" as contained in clause (a) of section 2 of the Act, according to which "assessing authority" means any person authorised by the State Government to make any assessment under this Act. He has referred to two notifications. The first is Notification No. ST-602/X-1013 (2)/53 dated 21st March, 1953, under which Sri Merh was appointed as Sales Tax Officer for the first time. This notification reads :-

(3.) IN exercise of the rule-making power conferred by section 24(1), the State Government has enacted a set of rules. When we look into the rules, to which we shall presently refer, were find that there is no mention of an "assessing authority". Instead, the rules speak of an officer called the "Sales Tax Officer". Under rule 2(h) a Sales tax Officer has been defined to mean a Sales Tax Officer of a circle appointed by the State Government to perform the duties and exercise the power of an assessing authority in such circle. Rule 2(c) defines a circle as a sales tax circle notified under sub-rule (1) of rule 3. Under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 the State Government may by notification in the official Gazette create and fix the limits of the circle and appoint officers to such circle, and under sub-rule (3) of rule 3 where there are more than on Sales Tax Officer in a circle, the Commissioner is to determine their respective jurisdiction in such circle. Finally, we have rule 6, the heading where of is "power of assessment." Clause (a) of that rule says that the Sales Tax Officer shall be the assessing authority in respect of the dealers carrying on business within the limits of his jurisdiction.