COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. MULLA AKBARALLY TAYABALLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under S. 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), made at the instance of the Commissioner of Sales Tax.

(2.) The questions referred to us for our determination are as follows :

(3.) The facts giving rise to this reference are as follows : In respect of the period from 1st April, 1957 to 31st March, 1958, the respondent, a registered dealer under the said Act, was assessed by the Sales Tax Officer, E Ward, Bombay. This assessment was completed on 23rd June 1959. On 15th September 1960 the Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, raided the place of business of the respondent; the said raid being euphemistically referred to by the Tribunal as a "visit". This Sales Tax Officer found that certain turnover of purchases did not appear to be recorded in the regular books of account on the basis of which the returns were filed by the respondent. In view of this, the Sales Tax Officer, (XVII), Enforcement Branch (referred to hereinafter as "the said Sales Tax Officer"), issued a notice on the respondent under S. 15 of the said Act for re-assessment, which notice was served on the respondent on 2nd March, 1966. On 28th July, 1966 the said Sales Tax Officer passed an order of re-assessment demanding certain tax from the respondent. Against this order, the respondent went in appeal but failed. The respondent then preferred a revision to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, who confirmed the order of the said Sales Tax Officer. The respondent then went before the Tribunal by way of second revision. At the hearing before the Tribunal, the respondent applied to be allowed to raise an additional ground regarding the jurisdiction of the said Sales Tax Officer to pass the re-assessment order. The learned Additional Government Agent appearing on behalf of the department raised no objection and this ground was allowed to be taken. The Tribunal followed the decision of its Special Bench in the case of M/s. Hansraj Vishram Rawani vs. State of Maharashtra and held that the said Sales Tax Officer, Enforcement Branch, had no jurisdiction to take re-assessment proceedings as the assessment was already completed by the Ward Sales Tax Officer and no proceedings were pending. It is the correctness of this conclusion which is sought to be decided by way of the questions raised before us.