COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. KAKARAM MAGHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee carried on business as a dealer of cloth, and was ordinarily liable to assessment under the U.P. Sales Tax Act by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector I, Kanpur Circle. Assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1953-54 were pending under rule 41(5) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, when the Commissioner of Sales Tax transferred the case of the assessee to the Sales Tax Officer, Sector VI, in the same circle under rule 81 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules. The Sales Tax Officer, Sector VI, made an assessment order dated 23rd April, 1965, determining the turnover of imported cloth at 365 bales. Subsequently, upon information received that the assessee had imported 450 1/2 bales and not merely 365 bales, proceedings were initiated under section 21 of the Act for assessing the escaped turnover. The reassessment proceedings were taken by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector I. Against that assessment the assessee filed an appeal, and contended that the case having been transferred to the Sales Tax Officer, Sector VI, there was no jurisdiction in the Sales Tax Officer, Sector I, to take assessment proceedings under section 21 and reassess the turnover. The appeal was allowed by the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax, and upholding the contention of the assessee he annulled the reassessment. He pointed out that "the record of the case shows that the case for the year 1953-54 was originally transferred to S.T.O. VI, Kanpur. It is evident that S.T.O. I had no jurisdiction after the transfer of the case." The Commissioner of Sales Tax now applied in revision. The Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, agreeing with the Judge (Appeals), dismissed the revision application. At the instance of the Commissioner, the Judge (Revisions) has referred the following question for the opinion of this court :

(2.) IT will be noted that the question referred proceeds upon the basis that the case for the assessment year 1953-54 had been transferred by the Commissioner from the Sales Tax Officer, Sector I, to the Sales Tax Officer, Sector VI. The point in issue is whether the case so transferred comprehended the original assessment only or could in law embrace within it an assessment under section 21 also. Section 2(a) defines an "assessing authority" as "any person authorised by the State Government to make any assessment under this Act". Rule 2(h) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules defines a "Sales Tax Officer" as the Sales Tax Officer of a circle appointed by the State Government to perform the duties and exercise the powers 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. Sub-rule (1) of rule 3 empowers the State Government to fix the limits of a circle and to appoint officers to the circle. Sub-rule (3) of rule 3 declares that where there are more than one Sales Tax Officer in a circle, the Commissioner of Sales Tax shall determine their respective jurisdictions within such circle. It is apparently in the exercise of that power that a circle has been divided into sectors and different Sales Tax Officers have been conferred exclusive jurisdiction in respect of different sectors. Rule 6 sets out a number of rules on the basis of which it can be determined whether an assessee falls within the jurisdiction of one Sales Tax Officer or the other. It is by reference to rule 6 read with rule 3(3) that the assessee was ordinarily liable to be assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, Sector I. Although an assessee may, by virtue of rule 6, ordinarily be liable to assessment by a particular Sales Tax Officer, nevertheless the Commissioner of Sales Tax may transfer his case from that Sales Tax Officer to another Sales Tax Officer. That power is contained in rule 81, which declares :

(3.) THE "assessing authority" contemplated by section 21 is the assessing authority having jurisdiction to assess the dealer, and the assessing authority empowered to assess the dealer was, upon transfer of the case, the Sales Tax Officer, Sector VI. The order transferring the case to him did not expressly limit his jurisdiction to the original assessment proceeding. Had that been so, the position would have been quite different. In the absence of any indication to that effect, the Sales Tax Officer, Sector VI, must be taken to be the assessing authority in respect of the dealer for all purposes under the Act. If he had jurisdiction to complete the original assessment proceeding he had also jurisdiction to reopen that proceeding and make a reassessment. It must not be forgotten that where an original assessment has already taken place and a proceeding has to be taken under section 21 in respect of a turnover which has escaped assessment, the proceeding under section 21 is in its true nature one of reassessment. The original assessment is reopened, as it were, and the turnover is reassessed. Ordinarily, the Sales Tax Officer who had the jurisdiction to make the original assessment would have the jurisdiction to assess again. What was transferred to the Sales Tax Officer, Sector VI, was the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1953-54. In the absence of a specific definition specifying what a "case" is under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, an assessment case would refer to a proceeding for determining the turnover of the dealer for a particular assessment year and computing the tax liability on such turnover. In that sense every proceeding taken, either initially or subsequently, by the Sales Tax Officer for determining the turnover and computing the tax liability of a dealer for that assessment year would be a proceeding in the case. It would include a proceeding upon an application under section 30 for reopening the assessment as well as a proceeding under section 22 for rectification of the assessment. There is no reason why a proceeding for reassessment under section 21 should not also be a proceeding in the case.