CHITTARMAL NARAIN DASS Vs. COMMISSIONER SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee, which is a partnership firm, deals in foodgrains and oil-seeds. On January 30, 1957, it made an application under rule 20-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules for exemption from sales tax of the turnover of foodgrains for the assessment year 1956-57. On November 25, 1958, an order of exemption under rule 20-B was made by the Sales Tax Officers, and the exemption fee was determined at Rs. 3,000. Upon revision application by the assessee, the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax accepted the plea that the quantum of turnover on which the fee should have been computed was much less, and he reduced the exemption fee to Rs. 1,500 by his order dated February 27, 1961.

(2.) MEANWHILE , the Sales Tax Officer took assessment proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act in respect of other turnover, and on October 28, 1958, an assessment order was made for the assessment year 1956-57. The assessee had realised Re. 2,341 as sales tax on the sale of foodgrains made on behalf of U.P. principals, and in the view that it was not due as sales tax the assessment order included a direction that the amount should be deposited under section 8-A(4) of the Act. The assessee appealed. The only point in dispute before the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax related to the calculation of tax in respect of various items. There was no dispute as to the quantum of the turnover. The Judge (Appeals) set aside the assessment order and remanded the case for fresh assessment. The appellate order may usefully be reproduced :

(3.) WE think that the Additional Judge (Revisions) has erred. In the reassessment proceeding taken upon remand the Sales Tax Officer was bound by the terms of the remand order made by the Judge (Appeals). The jurisdiction exercised by the Sales Tax Officer was not the uninhibited jurisdiction contemplated in an original assessment proceeding. It was controlled by the directions contained in the remand order. Upon the making of the original assessment order, the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer comes to an end. To reopen the assessment he is compelled to have recourse either to section 21 for assessing escaped turnover or to section 22 for rectifying the original assessment order or to section 30 for setting aside an ex parte assessment order. Apart from these provisions, he has no jurisdiction to touch an assessment already completed. If the case does not fall within any of those provisions and for some reason he considers it necessary to reopen the assessment there is nothing he can do about it. The only other case where the assessment can be reopened is upon the direction of a superior authority in an order of remand made in a duly constituted proceeding before that authority. An order remanding the case to the Sales Tax Officer has the effect of reopening the proceeding, and in the re-opened proceeding the Sales Tax Officer is reinvested with jurisdiction. But the limits of that jurisdiction are controlled by the curbs, if any, imposed by the remand order. If the remand order merely orders a fresh assessment and contains no restrictions subject to which the fresh assessment is to be made, the Sales Tax Officer can exercise all the jurisdiction available to him as if it were an original assessment proceeding. But where the remand order indicates the specific area to which the fresh assessment is to be confined, the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer is limited accordingly. These are fundamental principles governing all proceedings taken on remand.