LAWS(RAJ)-1993-11-45

ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. LAXMI UDYOG

Decided On November 09, 1993
ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Appellant
V/S
LAXMI UDYOG Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer has filed this revision petition under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, against the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal dated March 6, 1990, in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 by raising the following question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal : " Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle 'a' had no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order in respect of the dealer whose turnover is less than Rs. 7 lakhs ?"

(2.) THE assessment in this case was framed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, A Circle, Jaipur, and the gross turnover was determined at Rs. 6,50,961 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. An appeal was filed against the assessment order dated October 31, 1977, in which the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) found that the file was always with the Commercial Taxes Officer and the assessee was assessed previously by the Commercial Taxes Officer and a notice for the year 1974-75 was issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer fixing the date as May 14, 1976. THE Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer in charge of Ward No. II was not having the pecuniary jurisdiction at that time when the said notice was issued and it was only on June 24, 1977 that the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer was vested with the pecuniary jurisdiction for assessing the cases up to the turnover of Rs. 7 lakhs. It was found that the notification issued on June 24, 1977, has not divested the jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer who has once issued the notice. THE contention of the assessee was rejected. In revision before the Board of Revenue following the decision of the apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sarjoo Prasad Ram Kumar [1976] 37 STC 533 the revision was accepted. THE second appeal was also dismissed.