BASANTLAL AND CO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judge (Revisions) referred to this Court under Section 11(1) the following questions for its opinion.

(2.) The questions have been referred at the instance of the assessee who carried on business in bricks, agricultural implements, iron goods, paints etc. The question referred is for the assessment years 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53. The assessee did not produce any account books and did not appear before the Sales Tax Officer during the assessment proceedings and the Sales Tax Officer assessed it in default. Later the assessment order was set aside on appeal and the Sales Tax Officer was directed to make a fresh assessment. In the course of fresh assessment the assessee filed accounts but they were disbelieved by the Sales Tax Officer and he assessed it on the basis of best judgment. He took in each year the closing stock of the materials and thought that the turnover would be of the value of about four times the value of the closing stock. The assessee preferred appeals against the assessment orders and they were heard by the Additional Judge (Appeals), Kanpur, and. were dismissed by him. The assessee then preferred revision applications under Section 10 and the Judge (Revisions) reduced the multiple to about three. Then at its instance it has referred the questions.

(3.) The objection of the assessee to the jurisdiction exercised by the Additional Judge (Appeals) seems to be that an Additional Judge (Appeals) has no right to hear an appeal. Under Section 9 of the Sales Tax Act an appeal lies to an authority prescribed by the State Government. Under Rule 65 the State Government have prescribed that an appeal will lie to Judge (Appeals). Judge (Appeals) is defined in Rule 2(e) to mean any person appointed as such. It has not been shown that the officer who disposed of the appeals of the assessee as Additional Judge (Appeals), Kanpur, was not appointed as Judge (Appeals). The assessee contended that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeals simply because he was designated as Additional Judge (Appeals). "Judge (Appeals)" referred to in Rule 65 as an authority to which an appeal can lie includes a number of Judges (Appeals). The only requirement is that they should all be authorised by the State Government to perform duties in exercise of the powers of an appellate authority under the Act. There is no restriction on the State Government's powers to authorise more than one person to perform the duties in exercise of the powers of an appellate authority. Therefore, the State Government could appoint two or more persons as Judges (Appeals) and any one of them would be competent to hear the appeals. The question must, therefore, be answered in the negative. Actually this question does not arise out of the order passed by the Judge (Revisions) under Section 10. It was not raised before him in revision and he could not refer it to this Court under Section 11(1). He had no jurisdiction to refer to this Court a question not raised before him in revision and, consequently, not arising out of the order passed by him in revision.