PUNJAB CONCAST STEELS LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSISTANT Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Officer in-charge, Sales Tax Check Barrier, Faridabad, passed the impugned order imposing penalty to the tune of Rs. 40,800 under section 9 (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, read with section 37 (6) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. Though the petitioner has filed an appeal against the aforesaid order before the appellate authority under the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, yet the petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, asserting that respondent No. 2, the Officer in-charge, Sales Tax Check Barrier, Faridabad, had no jurisdiction to impose penalty as the powers of the Assessing Authority were not delegated to him.

(2.) The petitioner refers to the order annexure P-2 itself to show that in the said order itself, reference has been made to the observations in Janak Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Haryana S. T. A. No. 34 of 1990-91, by the Sales Tax Tribunal wherein it was held that there was no illegality in imposing penalty by the Officer in-charge of the barrier. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority is bound by the decision of the Sales Tax Tribunal as referred to above and no useful purpose would be served to await the decision of the appellate authority and that this Court should consider this case and determine, whether respondent No. 2 had the authority to impose penalty. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on Filterco v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh [1986] 61 STC 318 (SC); AIR 1986 SC 626 and Hindsons (P) Ltd. v. State of Punjab [1982] 49 STC 136 (P&h ).

(3.) We have gone through the judgments relied upon by the counsel, and find that the ratio of these cases cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. No specific question appears to have been raised or adjudicated upon by the Sales Tax Tribunal, whether the Officer in-charge of the check barrier was or was not delegated the powers of the Assessing Authority. Hence such observations cannot be treated as a decision on the point which is now sought to be raised. Since the petitioner has filed an appeal, he may raise this question about the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority - respondent No. 2 to pass the order and the department would meet it. It is only after the final order is passed, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise such question before this Court. 4 The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations. 5 Writ petition dismissed. .