JUDGMENT R. N. MISRA, J. - The Sales Tax Tribunal has stated this case and referred the following question for opinion of the court under section 24(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (briefly referred to as the "Act" hereinafter), on an application made by the State of Orissa : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, was right in holding that the Sales Tax Officer, Puri I Circle, has (sic) jurisdiction to assess the assessee in respect of sales made to various offices situated in other circles ?" 2. The period of assessment is 1966-67. The assessee is a registered dealer in Puri I Circle and has been assigned Registration Number 489 and carries on business in sanitary-wares, plumbing materials, G.I. pipes, tubewells and its accessories, agricultural implements, scientific instruments and all kinds of glass bottles and corks. Originally, returns had been filed as required under section 11(1) of the Act on 30th August, 1966, for the quarter ending with 30th June, 1966, and on 13th May, 1967, for the quarter ending with 31st March, 1967. Revised returns were, however, filed for those quarters on 29th January, 1968. The assessing officer did not accept the revised returns as not being in accordance with law, inasmuch as those were filed beyond three months from the due dates and proceeded to complete the assessments on the basis of the original returns and materials collected by him during the assessment proceedings. The assessing officer found that the assessee has been supplying goods to various institutions of the Government throughout the State, such as the Executive Engineer, Public Health Divisions I and II at Bhubaneswar, Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Cuttack, Executive Engineers at Sambalpur, Baripada, Rourkela, etc. The accounts were rejected and the assessing officer made an assessment according to his best of judgment under section 12(4) of the Act by adopting an estimate of all the sales within the State of Orissa. 3. In appeal, only one ground was pressed, namely, levy of interest amounting to Rs. 462.24 raised by the assessing officer under section 12(4-a) of the Act was not justified, but the contention was repelled. 3. In appeal, only one ground was pressed, namely, levy of interest amounting to Rs. 462.24 raised by the assessing officer under section 12(4-a) of the Act was not justified, but the contention was repelled. In second appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that the Sales Tax Officer, Puri I Circle, had no jurisdiction to assess sales tax in respect of the turnover relating to transactions beyond his circle. The Tribunal after dealing with the contention at some length came to hold : "............ Therefore, the Sales Tax Officer, Puri I Circle, cannot arrogate to himself jurisdiction to assess him in respect of the turnover in other circles. When there is no notification by the Commissioner conferring concurrent jurisdiction, the fact of non-payment of tax in other circles would not confer jurisdiction on the Sales Tax Officer, Puri I Circle, to assess him. He cannot arrogate to himself the jurisdiction not conferred on him by law. The assessment is, therefore, without jurisdiction and so invalid. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the assessment is reduced to the returned figure, that is, as per the revised return of the dealer." 4. Though it is not clear from the various orders, it has been conceded before us by counsel for both sides that in the original returns for the two quarters, the assessee had shown some sales made beyond the jurisdiction of Puri Circle. In the revised returns, the assessee excluded those sales and confined the returns to sales made within Puri I Circle though the revised returns in both the quarters were for higher amounts than the figures disclosed in the original returns. Obviously in the original returns, the entire transactions even in regard to Puri I Circle had not been properly disclosed. 5. Before examining the legal position with reference to the facts of this case for answering the question referred, we think it is proper that certain admitted facts be noticed. The assessee has been registered as a dealer under Puri I Circle and has a place of business there. In regard to this business, the assessee is registered as a dealer. Accounts are maintained at Puri and, in fact, as the order of assessment would show those were produced at the time assessments were made. The assessee sells various goods in different assessment circles within the State. In regard to this business, the assessee is registered as a dealer. Accounts are maintained at Puri and, in fact, as the order of assessment would show those were produced at the time assessments were made. The assessee sells various goods in different assessment circles within the State. It is not the case of the assessee that there is any other place of business than Puri, nor is it the assessee's case that accounts are maintained anywhere else. The assessee has not applied to the taxing department for registration of its business at any other place. 6. It is now necessary to refer to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. "Dealer" has been defined under section 2(c) of the Act to mean : "............... any person who carries on the business of purchasing or selling or supplying goods in Orissa, whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise and includes a department of the Government which carries on such business and any firm or a Hindu joint family, and any society, club or association which purchases goods from or sells or supplies goods to its members and also includes a casual dealer as hereinbefore defined." Section 3 prescribes the taxing authorities. Under section 3(3) : "The State Government may appoint such other persons under any prescribed designation including an Additional Commissioner and a Deputy Commissioner to assist the Commissioner and they shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed by or under the provisions of this Act within such local area as may be assigned to them by the Commissioner." Section 4, as far as relevant, provides : "(1) Subject to the provisions of sections 3-B, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and with effect from such date, as the State Government may, by notification, in the Gazette, appoint, being not earlier than 30 days after the date of the said notification, every dealer whose gross turnover during the year immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1968, exceeded Rs. 10,000 shall be liable to pay tax under this Act on sales and purchases effected after the date so notified. (Section 4 as existing at the material period has been quoted.) ....... 10,000 shall be liable to pay tax under this Act on sales and purchases effected after the date so notified. (Section 4 as existing at the material period has been quoted.) ....... (5) Where a dealer liable to pay tax under this Act starts a new business, partnership, firm or concern, whether by changing the constitution, style or the name of the previous business, partnership, firm or concern or otherwise, either singly or jointly with any other person, such newly started business, partnership, firm or concern shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this section but always subject to the other provisions of this Act, be liable to pay tax on sales and purchases from the date of commencement of the said business, partnership, firm or concern, as the case may be." Under rule 3(1) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), the authorities to be appointed for assisting the Commissioner have been designated. Sub-rule (4) provides : "The State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, constitute areas into circles over which an Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, a Sales Tax Officer or an Assistant Sales Tax Officer, as the Commissioner may specify, by notification, shall exercise jurisdiction, provided that a Sales Tax Officer exercising jurisdiction over any circle may also exercise concurrent jurisdiction in another circle, if so directed by the Commissioner in the notification : Provided further that such circles may likewise be reconstituted at any time by notification in the Gazette." Puri I Circle is one of the circles notified under rule 3(4) of the Rules and is in-charge of a Sales Tax Officer. Rule 9(2) provides : "The registration mark to be assigned by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer or the Sales Tax Officer, as the case may be, shall consist of the following letters and figures representing the area over which he has jurisdiction as shown below ......" and the various circles with different registration marks had been indicated. Rule 9(2) provides : "The registration mark to be assigned by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer or the Sales Tax Officer, as the case may be, shall consist of the following letters and figures representing the area over which he has jurisdiction as shown below ......" and the various circles with different registration marks had been indicated. In rule 2, "place of business", "chief place of business" and "principal place of business" have been defined : "Place of business means any place where a dealer sells or purchases any goods or keeps accounts of sales or purchases;" "Chief place of business means in relation to a dealer in any area within the jurisdiction of an Assistant Sales Tax Officer or Sales Tax Officer, as the case may be, the place of business mentioned as his chief place of business in the certificate of registration granted under rule 7;" "Principal place of business means in relation to a dealer who has more than one place of business in the State of Orissa, the place of business mentioned as his principal place of business for the State in his application for registration : Provided, however, that the principal place of business shall be the same as the chief place of business if the dealer has only one chief place of business and in case the dealer has more than one chief place of business the principal place of business shall be one of them." Rule 6 provides for application for registration. Form II is the statutory form of application for registration. Clause 5 of the said form reads thus : "The gross turnover of the business (including that at its branches) in Orissa during the period not exceeding twelve months, commencing from .............. and ending on ......... having exceeded Rs. .......... being Rs. ........... (in words) ......... Form II is the statutory form of application for registration. Clause 5 of the said form reads thus : "The gross turnover of the business (including that at its branches) in Orissa during the period not exceeding twelve months, commencing from .............. and ending on ......... having exceeded Rs. .......... being Rs. ........... (in words) ......... the dealer becomes liable for registration under section 9 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act with effect from ............." Clause 9 runs thus : "The dealer has additional places of business and warehouses (in Orissa) at the addresses enumerated below." Clause 9-A is to the following effect : "The principal place of business of the dealer in the State of Orissa is ............................" Rule 20 makes provision for filing of returns and rule 26 provides : "(1) Where a dealer has places of business within the jurisdiction of more than one sales tax authority the Commissioner may by order in writing direct that such dealer shall instead of submitting return 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." 7. These thus appear to be the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder with reference to which the question posed for elucidation has to be answered. There is no dispute that the Sales Tax Act intends to assess all sales coming within the purview of liability indicated in section 4 of the Act taking place within the State of Orissa. With a view to appropriately regulating the statutory purpose, the State of Orissa has been divided into various circles and depending upon the place of business, an assessee becomes subject to the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer in-charge of the respective circles. With a view to appropriately regulating the statutory purpose, the State of Orissa has been divided into various circles and depending upon the place of business, an assessee becomes subject to the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer in-charge of the respective circles. The statutory scheme is that every businessman whose turnover within the State of Orissa of sales exceeds Rs. 10,000 during the year immediately preceding the date of commencement of the Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment) Act of 1968 had liability to pay sales tax. The application form for registration also refers to the turnover throughout the entire State. For convenient administration of the statute, the State has been divided into various circles and each circle has been placed in-charge of an appropriate officer. Under the statutory scheme, the dealer is to disclose his place of business and in case he has more than one, all additional places of business. He is also required to disclose his chief place of business. When a dealer has turnover liable to tax under different circles, he has obligation to apply for registration in the respective circles. His liability under section 4(5) of the Act begins the moment he has any sales. There is no basic exemption (as in the first case up to Rs. 10,000) and every sale made by him becomes exigible to tax. This is on the footing that all his turnovers throughout the State were taken into account. Thus, when a registered dealer within one circle starts business in any other circle, he has obligation form the very commencement to ask for registration and pay tax on his sales turnover. The scheme conceives of the position that one dealer may have several places of business, some located within the same circle and others located in different circles. The scheme also takes note of the fact that there may be dealers who would have a chief place of business or a principal place of business and, therefore, calls upon such dealers who have several places of business to indicate which one would be their chief or principal place of business. To ameliorate the difficulties of assessees having several places of business in different circles, provision has been made under rule 26 for consolidation of returns which would mean one return to be filed in respect of turnovers in several circles. 8. To ameliorate the difficulties of assessees having several places of business in different circles, provision has been made under rule 26 for consolidation of returns which would mean one return to be filed in respect of turnovers in several circles. 8. The assessee in this case has been carrying on business at Puri and is maintaining accounts there. The definition of "place of business" has two alternatives, namely, (i) where the dealer actually sells or purchases goods, or (ii) keeps accounts of sales or purchases. In the instant case, as the finding appears to be, the assessee's place of business may have been Puri or the other places in different circles, but admittedly he has been maintaining the accounts of sales at Puri. Though admittedly the assessee makes sales elsewhere outside the circle, it is not the case of the assessee that the accounts are not maintained at Puri in respect of such turnovers. At any rate, the assessee has no other place within the State of Orissa where accounts are maintained. In these premises, the taxing authorities have rightly proceeded on the basis that accounts of all the turnovers of the assessee are maintained at Puri and in view of the definition of "place of business", the assessee's liability for the turnovers throughout the State arises within Puri I Circle. Mr. B. M. Patnaik for the assessee has contended that if this view of the law is taken and the assessee's liability at Puri is fixed in respect of the turnovers outside the jurisdiction of Puri I Circle, it is quite possible that all the Sales Tax Officers within whole jurisdictions the assessee would have turnovers would assume jurisdiction in respect of all the sales made beyond their jurisdiction and the assessee may have to face several assessments in regard to the same turnover or even it would be quite possible that while in one circle there would be a complete assessment of all the turnovers, in the other circles, there may be assessment of turnovers of their respective circles. In this eventuality there would also be double taxation. In this eventuality there would also be double taxation. The short answer to meet such an argument is that the scheme under the Act comprehends a course which if followed there would be no occasion for double assessment and in case the assessee faces an assessment where all the turnover is taken into account, it would be open to him when he is called upon in different circles for the purposes of assessment to show that he has already been assessed for the entire turnover and there is no question of assessing the said turnover twice. The difficulty envisaged by Mr. Patnaik would certainly arise in a case where a dealer like the assessee while carrying on business in several circles does not choose to get himself registered in the other circles, apply for a consolidated return in respect of the turnovers in different circles, but seeks to contend that though he has his place of business at Puri, the Sales Tax Officer of Puri I Circle is entitled only to assess the sales turnover of transactions carried within the Puri I Circle. 9. Two decisions have been referred to in the decision of the Tribunal, namely, State of Orissa v. Damodar Sahu [[1972] 30 S.T.C. 262] and M/s. Keshrichand Pushraj v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa [O.J.C. No. 388 of 1967 disposed of on 31st March, 1970 (Orissa High Court); page 417 infra]. In fact, when this reference had been placed for hearing before a Division Bench constituted by two of us, the assessee's counsel had contended that the principles laid down in these cases and one more Bench decision of this Court in the case of Carona Sahu Company Limited v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa [Page 418 infra; I.L.R. 1974 Cutt, 1091], were not in accord with each other and that necessitated this matter being examined by a larger Bench. 10. We do not find any of the aforesaid cases directly answering the point raised in this case. In Damodar Sahu's case [[1972] 30 S.T.C. 262], the assessee was an unregistered dealer carrying on business in selling of rice at Bhubaneswar. He was purchasing rice from Pipili and rice was exigible to purchase tax within the State. The assessee was found to be maintaining his purchases and sales at Bhubaneswar. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Bhubaneswar (Puri II Circle), had assessed the assessee. He was purchasing rice from Pipili and rice was exigible to purchase tax within the State. The assessee was found to be maintaining his purchases and sales at Bhubaneswar. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Bhubaneswar (Puri II Circle), had assessed the assessee. The assessee canvassed that as the place of purchase was Pipili within the Puri I Circle, the Sales Tax Officer, Puri I Circle, could only assess him. On the admitted position that the assessee carried on business at Bhubaneswar only and maintained accounts there, the court found that the assessee had been appropriately assessed by Puri II Circle. In Keshrichand's case [O.J.C. No. 388 of 1967 disposed of on 31st March, 1970 (Orissa High Court); page 417 infra], the assessee had two places of business, one at Malgodown within Cuttack City and the other at Tarpur within the District of Cuttack. The Malgodown area came within the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle, while the other lay within the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle. The assessee in its return in Cuttack I Circle included the turnovers of both the places of business and in the other return showed nil and in an accompanying statement indicated that the the turnover had been shown in the return filed before the Cuttack I Circle. On the admitted figures returned to Cuttack I Circle assessment was completed. The Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle, made an independent assessment in respect of purchase of jute (jute is taxed at purchase point) within his area. When the assessee found that the same turnover was being taxed twice and failed to obtain any relief elsewhere, the assessee approached this court under article 226 of the Constitution. The contention of the revenue before this court was summarised thus : "............. 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 the assessment as Tarpur was within his jurisdiction. Legally, the contention of the learned standing counsel is sound and must be upheld. 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 the assessment as Tarpur was within his jurisdiction. 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 : (The rule was quoted). 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 motu 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. 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." The principle indicated in the decision is very much against the assessee's contention before us. It is true that in the said case, the assessee had shown his total turnover at one place and, in the present case, the assessee wants his liability to be confined to sales taking place within Puri I Circle. In Carona Sahu Company's case [Page 418 infra; I.L.R., 1974 Cutt, 1091], the petitioner had three places of business within the State, one at Rourkela, the second at Bhubaneswar and a third at Cuttack. It had three independent registrations as "dealer" under the Act in respect of these there places. It started a new place of business at Choudhury Bazar within the town of Cuttack. An application for consolidation of returns was pending before the Commissioner and in the meantime, the petitioner made a return to the Sales Tax Officer of Rourkela including therein the entire turnover of all the places of business. The Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela, completed the assessment by accepting the entire turnover. An application for consolidation of returns was pending before the Commissioner and in the meantime, the petitioner made a return to the Sales Tax Officer of Rourkela including therein the entire turnover of all the places of business. The Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela, completed the assessment by accepting the entire turnover. Thereafter the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle (West), started assessing the petitioner on the same turnover. The application under rule 26 was rejected. The assessee disputed the demand raised at Cuttack. The facts of the case, therefore, are very different. There is no conflict requiring elucidation in the decisions of this court. 11. On the analysis made of the scheme contained in the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the Rules made thereunder, we come to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable for assessment in respect of all his turnovers - whether the sales took place within the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Puri I Circle, or outside - as long as the sales were within the State of Orissa. 12. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, was not right in holding that the Sales Tax Officer, Puri I Circle, had no jurisdiction to assess the assessee in respect of sales made to various offices situated in other circles. The assessee must pay costs to the department. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees two hundred. PANDA, J. - I agree. DAS, J. - I agree Reference answered accordingly.