DASH AGENCY Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER ASSESSMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. J. Sahu, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Revenue.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 and has been granted a TIN number challenges the order of assessment dated January 17, 2007 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Jagatsinghpur -opposite party No. 1 under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 vide annexure 3 on the following grounds: That the provisions of Section 2(4) of the OVAT Act defining the expression 'assessing authority' being relevant the same are reproduced below: Section 2(4) : 'Assessing authority' means any officer appointed under Sub -section (2) of Section 3 who is authorised by the Commissioner to make assessment under this Act.The provisions of Rule 34(8) and Rule 34(12) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 being relevant the same are reproduced below: Rule 34(8): The return under Sub -rule (1) shall be filed in the range and the return under sub -rule (6) shall be filed in the circle, where the dealer is registered: Provided that for the convenience of the dealer, a return under Sub -rule (1) may be furnished to the assessment unit or circle under whose jurisdiction the place of business of the dealer is situated, and the concerned assessment unit or circle, on receipt of such return, and after preliminary processing shall submit it to the range.Rule 34(12): For the purpose of this rule, the assessing authority shall mean, (a) the assessing authority of the circle in respect of dealers, who have been granted registration under Sub -rule (1) of Rule 18 and assigned with SRIN under Sub -rule (4) of Rule 19, (b) the assessing authority of the range in respect of dealers, who have been granted registration under Sub -rule (1) of Rule 18 and assigned with TIN under Sub -rule (1) of Rule 19. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid provisions therefore speaks in no uncertain term that the assessment in respect of the present petitioner can only be done by the assessing authority of the range as per Rule 34(12)(b) of the OVAT Rules and not by the assessing authority of the assessment unit (opposite party No. 1). Therefore, the order dated January 17, 2007 passed by the said opposite party No. 1 is without jurisdiction and is accordingly liable to be quashed.

(3.) IN view of Rule 34(12)(b) of the OVAT Rules as noted hereinabove it is clear that dealers who have been granted registration under the OVAT Act/ Rules and have been assigned with UN numbers, in terms of the aforesaid rule, such dealers can only be assessed by the 'assessing authority of the range'. Annexure 3 is the impugned order of assessment, which has been admittedly passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Jagatsinghpur. It has been admitted by the learned Counsel for the Revenue that the Sales Tax Officer is not 'the assessing authority of the range' as required under Rule 34(12)(b). We are satisfied on a scrutiny of the impugned order of assessment under annexure 3 that since it has been passed by the Sales Tax Officer and not by the assessing authority of the range, the order of assessment cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is held to be without jurisdiction not being in conformity with Rule 34(12)(b). Accordingly, the order impugned, i.e., assessment order, vide annexure 3 is set aside.