JUDGMENT G. K. MISRA, C.J. - The petitioner is a partnership firm. It purchases jute. It has two places of business - one at the Malgodown in Cuttack City and the other at Tarpur in the district of Cuttack. Without giving separate returns of its turnovers of purchases in Cuttack City and Tarpur before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle, and Cuttack II Circle, respectively, the petitioner filed one joint return in respect of both the turnovers before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle. In respect of the turnover of purchases at Tarpur, the petitioner gave a nil return with an accompanying statement that the return of the same had been filed before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle. Mr. Mohapatra, the learned standing counsel, concedes before us that purchase tax has been paid in respect of both the turnovers on the basis of a joint return filed before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle. He, however, contends that in respect of turnover of purchases held at Tarpur, the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle, was justified in proceeding with assessment as Tarpur was within his jurisdiction. 2. Legally, the contention of the learned standing counsel is sound and must be upheld. This is supported by rule 26 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, which runs thus : "26. Submission of consolidated return by dealer having more places of business than one. - (1) Where a dealer has places of business within the jurisdiction of more than one sale tax authority the Commissioner may by order in writing direct that such dealer shall instead of submitting returns in form IV or in form IV-A, as the case may be, in respect of each place of business submit one consolidated return in form IV or form IV-A, as the case may be, to such sales tax authority and in respect of such places of business of the dealer as may be specified in the order and may, likewise, modify or annual such orders. (2) The dealer in respect of whom an order has been passed under sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to be a dealer of the circle in which he has been permitted to submit a consolidated return for the purposes of the Act and the Rules made thereunder." It would appear from the aforesaid rule that when a dealer has more than one place of business, he must approach the Commissioner for giving sanction to or the Commissioner suo moto may permit the filing of a consolidated return before the sales tax authority of one place of business. If such an order is passed, the dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer of the circle in which he has been permitted to submit a consolidated return. 3. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner did not take the permission of the Commissioner. It did not comply with rule 26 and, accordingly, the return filed by it before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle, cannot absolve it from the responsibility of filing a return in respect of the turnover of purchases at Tarpur lying within the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle. The Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle, was therefore perfectly justified in passing an order of assessment. 4. Despite out holding in favour of the revenue that law justifies the impugned assessments, we are inclined to quash those assessments as it has come to out notice that, in fact, purchase tax has been paid on the gross turnover of both the places of business. There is therefore no reason why the dealer should be pursued further. We accordingly quash the impugned assessments in respect of quarters ending 31st December, 1963, and 31st March, 1964. The assessments made by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle, on the consolidated return remains valid. 5. In the result, the writ application succeeds; but as the petitioner violated law it has to pay costs of this application. Hearing fee Rs. 100. ACHARYA, J. - I agree. The assessments made by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle, on the consolidated return remains valid. 5. In the result, the writ application succeeds; but as the petitioner violated law it has to pay costs of this application. Hearing fee Rs. 100. ACHARYA, J. - I agree. [The judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court consisting of R. N. MISRA and P. K. MOHANTI, JJ., in Carona Sahu Company Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, and Others (O.J.C. No. 79 of 1973) delivered on 30th August, 1974, is printed below :-] CARONA SAHU COMPANY LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, ORISSA R. N. MISRA, J. - The petitioner, a public limited company, manufactures footwears of all varieties and its accessories and runs retail shops throughout the country for sale of its products. It opened a retail shop in July, 1966, at Rourkela and obtained a certificate of registration under the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") therefor in September, 1966. With effect from 1st October, 1968, another retail shop at Bhubaneswar was opened. Since liability under section 4(5) of the Act commences from the very commencement of the new business, a fresh certificate of registration was applied for and on 27th December, 1968, requisite certificate for the Bhubaneswar business was obtained. In 3rd January, 1969, an application for fling of consolidated returns for the aforesaid two places of business was made under rule 26(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter called the "Rules"). On 28th December, 1969, consolidation was permitted. The petitioner had been making consolidated returns in respect of the turnovers for the business at Rourkela and Bhubaneswar. On 15th February, 1970, a retail shop at Tinikonia Bagicha within the town of Cuttack was opened and on 18th March, 1970, an application for registration thereof was made. On 19th November, 1970, registration thereof was granted. On 3rd March, 1971, an application was made for extending the facility of making consolidated returns in respect of the third shop. In the meantime in May, 1970, the fourth shop within the State of Orissa at Choudhury Bazar within the town of Cuttack was opened and in respect of the same an endorsement was made as required under rule 16 of the Rules. In July, 1970, the petitioner started a retail shop at Berhampur. In the meantime in May, 1970, the fourth shop within the State of Orissa at Choudhury Bazar within the town of Cuttack was opened and in respect of the same an endorsement was made as required under rule 16 of the Rules. In July, 1970, the petitioner started a retail shop at Berhampur. Registration in respect of this business was, however, ultimately refused and we are not concerned with the Berhampur business in this application. The petitioner included its turnover for the Cuttack business in the consolidated return filed before the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela, in respect of the quarter ending 31st March, 1970, and for the subsequent quarters of 1970-71 and 1971-72. The Sales Tax Officer, the petitioner alleges, completed the assessments by accepting the entire turnover of the business for the shops at Rourkela, Bhubaneswar and Cuttack for the period ending 31st March, 1970, as also for the year 1970-71. This was possibly done on the representation of the assessee that the application for making of a consolidated return was pending disposal before the Commissioner. In respect of the year 1971-72, the assessing officer, however, did not include the turnovers of Tinikonia Bagicha and Choudhury Bazar shops and excluded the same. By then the application for making of a consolidated return had been rejected by the Commissioner. In due course, the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I (West) Circle, within whose jurisdiction admittedly the places of business at Tinikonia Bagicha and Choudhury Bazar come, proceeded to assess the petitioner in respect of its turnovers and on the finding that returns had not been made as required under the Act, imposed penalties under section 11(3) of the Act. Demands were raised and as they were not satisfied in spite of notice, penalties were also levied under section 13(5) of the Act. This application was filed on 19th January, 1973, asking for a writ of certiorari to quash the assessments raised by the Cuttack-I (West) Circle, for the issue of a writ of mandamus requiring the Commissioner of Sales Tax to reconsider the application for consolidation of return and for other ancillary reliefs. 2. This application was filed on 19th January, 1973, asking for a writ of certiorari to quash the assessments raised by the Cuttack-I (West) Circle, for the issue of a writ of mandamus requiring the Commissioner of Sales Tax to reconsider the application for consolidation of return and for other ancillary reliefs. 2. The Commissioner of Sales Tax by his order dated 24th November, 1971, came to find : "In the course of hearing it was urged on behalf of the applicant that as permission has already been accorded for filing a consolidated return in respect of two places of business situated in the State it will be convenient if it is permitted to include in this consolidated return the transactions in respect of the two new places of business situated in Cuttack-I (West) Circle. It seems, in anticipation of this permission it has been filing consolidated return and is now asking for regularising this. The authorised representative of the applicant-company states that their local managers have no authority in respect of taxation cases which are looked after direct from their head office at Bombay and, therefore, it is not possible for these local managers to submit any return or explain any books of account in taxation cases. It is for the applicant to manage its own affairs in any manner it considers convenient and expedient. But it cannot ask for a benefit on the ground that it does not want taxation cases to be dealt with locally. In any case, all taxation cases cannot be treated on the same footing. For example, there may be no difficulty in dealing with income-tax matters at one place but in respect of sales tax cases which are governed by local laws, central control does create difficulty for the department. That apart, sales are effected locally and certainly the initial account relating to those sales are compiled locally. Therefore, the local offices of the applicant are more relevant for administration of sales tax. Therefore unless there are very special reasons to justify a different procedure each local office should continue to be a separate unit for return. I should consider that the applicant should have no difficulty in submitting a separate return in each circle, whether they control the work locally or centrally." The reasonings of the Commissioner do not appear to be irrelevant or out of place. I should consider that the applicant should have no difficulty in submitting a separate return in each circle, whether they control the work locally or centrally." The reasonings of the Commissioner do not appear to be irrelevant or out of place. On the other hand, we are prepared to agree with the learned standing counsel that the reasonings advanced are germane. Discretion vests in the Commissioner to allow consolidation and where in sound exercise of discretion and for the reasons indicated, the Commissioner refuses to exercise the discretion in favour of the assessee, it is not for this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the same. We accordingly decline to interfere in the matter so far as rejection of the prayer for consolidation of returns is concerned. If there be any changed circumstances, or if there be any other cogent ground upon which the petitioner wants to approach the Commissioner for modification of his order, it is open to the petitioner to do so. What appropriate direction the Commissioner would give is a matter for him in exercise of his discretion and we do not intend to say anything about it. 3. There is no doubt that the petitioner became liable to make returns as required under section 11 of the Act in Cuttack-I (West) Circle in respect of its two places of business located within that jurisdiction and even without obtaining the permission to file consolidated returns at Rourkela, the petitioner omitted to file returns in compliance with the statutory requirement before the appropriate officer in Cuttack-I (West) Circle. Therefore, the levy of penalty under section 11(3) of the Act is not open to dispute. In fact, Mr. Mohanty for the petitioner conceded that there had been a default and in view of the default, we do not find that the assessing officer acted without jurisdiction in raising penalties under section 11(3) of the Act. 4. The demand of sales tax for the period ending 31st March, 1970, and for the year 1970-71 in respect of the business carried on in Cuttack-I (West) Circle stands on a different footing. Admittedly, the petitioner filed a consolidated return for the same before the Rourkela Circle and the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela Circle, assessed the petitioner in respect of the said turnover while for the year 1971-72 this was not done and refund was ordered. Admittedly, the petitioner filed a consolidated return for the same before the Rourkela Circle and the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela Circle, assessed the petitioner in respect of the said turnover while for the year 1971-72 this was not done and refund was ordered. As it appears, pursuant to the assessment completed for those two periods by the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela Circle, the tax deposited by the petitioner has been appropriated by the State. In respect of the same turnover relating to the Cuttack-I (West) Circle, a second set of demands has been raised. The petitioner has furnished a chart along with this writ application showing that for these two periods in respect of the Cuttack business, the petitioner had credited to the treasury by way of sales tax sums of money in excess of what has been found due pursuant to the demands made in Cuttack-I (West) Circle. The learned standing counsel contended that for the period ending 31st March, 1970, it is difficult to ascertain from the record as to what exactly was the turnover in respect of the Cuttack-I (West) Circle. Mr. Mohanty, however, points out that the petitioner's assertion in the writ application has not been denied by the opposite parties and, therefore, we should not take notice of the learned standing counsel's contention in this respect. We are inclined to accept Mr. Mohanty's contention in view of the fact that in the counter-affidavit of the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I (West) Circle, there is no pointed objection to the assertion made in the writ application. 5. We find from the records that the petitioner has credited to the treasury sales tax in respect of the taxable turnover of the two shops within the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I (West) Circle at Rourkela, and has included the turnover of these two shops in the consolidated return for the period ending 31st March, 1970, as also for the year 1970-71. The petitioner disclosed the turnover for these shops separately and a part of the tax paid by it was in respect of the turnover of these two shops. The Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela Circle, made an assessment for the two periods incorporating the turnovers of these two shops and computed the tax payable by the petitioner on such basis. In respect of the same transactions, the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I (West) Circle, has raised fresh demands. The Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela Circle, made an assessment for the two periods incorporating the turnovers of these two shops and computed the tax payable by the petitioner on such basis. In respect of the same transactions, the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I (West) Circle, has raised fresh demands. Undoubtedly, once consolidation of return is refused, the petitioner is obliged to make a return of its turnover for the two shops at Cuttack to the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I (West) Circle, and the assessment made by the Cuttack-I (West) Circle cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Mr. Mohanty for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Keshrichand Pushraj v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, and Others [Page 417 supra] (O.J.C. No. 388 of 1967 decided on 31st March, 1970). There, this court found that tax had been paid in a wrong jurisdiction and when fresh set of demands were raised in respect of the same turnover for which tax had been paid, the second set of assessments in the appropriate jurisdiction were quashed. The direction given by this court in the said case undoubtedly supports Mr. Mohanty's submission before us, but we are not inclined to quash the assessments made by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I (West) Circle. While not quashing the assessments, we are, however, prepared to direct that the demands raised on account of such assessments for the period ending 31st March, 1970, and for the year 1970-71 by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I (West) Circle, shall not be enforced against the petitioner and shall be allowed to be satisfied by adjusting the tax already paid by the petitioner is the Rourkela Circle for the corresponding quarters. The learned standing counsel raised objection to such a direction during hearing of the application on the ground that the Act does not provide for such adjustment. He has, however, not been able to show any positive provision which prohibits adjustment in a case of this type. The learned standing counsel raised objection to such a direction during hearing of the application on the ground that the Act does not provide for such adjustment. He has, however, not been able to show any positive provision which prohibits adjustment in a case of this type. Once there is no dispute that the petitioner has under peculiar circumstances included the turnover of the Cuttack shops and even credited to the State treasury the tax thereupon and the Sales Tax Officer without any justification has completed the assessments by incorporating these turnovers and has raised demands in respect thereof, which the petitioner has satisfied by payment, there is no basis for the contention that the second set of demands raised by the Cuttack-I (West) Circle on the same turnover must also be required to be satisfied by payment. The learned standing counsel was fair enough to state that it is not the intention of the State to collect a second set of tax in respect of the same transaction though not payable under the state. If that be the real position - and we see no scope for a different view - the only appropriate direction that can issue is to require the opposite parties to adjust the excess payments made in the Rourkela Circle for the quarter ending 31st March, 1970, and for the year 1970-71. If there be any excess to be paid after the adjustment certainly the same has to be collected from the petitioner. 6. The assessee appears to have been visited with penalties under section 13(5) of the Act on the footing that the demands raised by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I (West) Circle, for those two periods had not been satisfied within the time allowed under the law. Now that we have found that the tax amounts were already credited to the treasury, there is no justification for sustaining the penalties under section 13(5) of the Act. It may be true that the petitioner had not appeared before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I (West) Circle, and represented to him after demand notices were served to the effect that tax in respect thereof had already been paid at Rourkela and, therefore, the demands raised by the Cuttack-I (West) Circle must be deemed to have been satisfied. It may be true that the petitioner had not appeared before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack-I (West) Circle, and represented to him after demand notices were served to the effect that tax in respect thereof had already been paid at Rourkela and, therefore, the demands raised by the Cuttack-I (West) Circle must be deemed to have been satisfied. Merely because there has been default on the part of the petitioner to point out this fact to the Sales Tax Officer at Cuttack would not justify levy of penalty under section 13(5) of the Act. The very foundation for imposition of penalty under section 13(5) of the statute must vanish once it is found that sufficient money to meet the demands stood credited to the treasury by way of sales tax at Rourkela. We would, accordingly, hold that the penalties levied under section 13(5) of the Act for these two periods, namely, quarter ending 31st March, 1970, and for the year 1970-71 must stand annulled. 7. The writ application is allowed in part. A writ of mandamus shall issue to the opposite parties to satisfy the demands raised by the Cuttack-I (West) Circle for the period ending 31st March, 1970, and for the year 1970-71 out of the excess deposits made in the Rourkela Circle for the corresponding period. If there be any excess amount to be paid after adjustment is effected, for the balance amount, the petitioner's liability under the Act shall continue and the petitioner will be obliged to satisfy the same. We further direct that the penalties levied under section 13(5) of the Act for the aforesaid two periods in respect of the Cuttack-I (West) Circle assessments, shall stand quashed. The prayer of the petitioner to require the Commissioner of Sales Tax to redispose of its application for consolidated returns stands rejected. We direct the parties to bear their own costs of this proceeding. MOHANTI, J. - I agree.