JUDGMENT 1. - These revision petitions have been filed under Section 15, Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') against the common order of the Rajasthan Sales-tax Tribunal, Ajmer dated July 13, 1993, by which the second appeals of the assessee-company-respondent (In short 'the Company' ) have been allowed and the assessment orders dated 24th and 26th November, 1992 of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle II, Jodhpur (In short 'the CTO') and the common order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur dated January 7, 1993 have been set aside and the cases have been remanded to the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle I, Jodhpur for passing fresh assessment orders under Section 10 instead of Section 7B of the Act and for refunding the amounts to the Company as per the directions of the High Court given in the writ petitions filed and decided earlier. By the said orders, following amounts of tax, interest and penalty have been imposed against the Company:- (1) 1991-92 ORDER dated 24.11.92 (i) Tax Rs. 1,08,35,328.00 (ii) Interest u/s 11B Rs. 49,84,261.00 (iii) Penalty u/s 16(1)(e) Rs. 2,00,00,000.00 Rs. 3,58,19,589.00 (2) 1992-93 ORDER dated 26.11.92 (i) Tax Rs. 73,34,291.00 (ii) Interest u/s 11B Rs. 16,30,546.00 (iii) Penalty u/s 16(1)(e) Rs. 1,46,00,000.00 Rs. 2,35,64,837.00 2. The facts of the case giving rise to these revision petitions may be summarised thus. The company is a registered company engaged in manufacture of while cement. Its plant is situated in village Kharia Khangar (District Jodhpur). In the Registration Certificate, its principal place of business has been shown at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur. In July 1992, the company shifted its entire office including administrative office from Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur to the said village Kharia Khangar and only a skeleton staff remained at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur for liaison work. The areas of Shastri Nagar and Kharia Khangar fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle II, Jodhpur and the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle I, Jodhpur respectively. The CTO surveyed the business premises of the company and inspected its records at both the aforesaid places from June 6, 1992 to October 9, 1992. On August 1, 1992, the Company intimated the CTO about the shifting of its administrative office from Shastri Nagar to Kharia Khangar. The CTO surveyed the business premises of the company and inspected its records at both the aforesaid places from June 6, 1992 to October 9, 1992. On August 1, 1992, the Company intimated the CTO about the shifting of its administrative office from Shastri Nagar to Kharia Khangar. On 12th and 13th October, 1992, the CTO issued notices under section 7B of the Act read with Section 9(2), Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively. Both the notices were received by the Company on October 14, 1992. At the request of the Company, the cases were adjourned to November 23, 1992. The Company sent applications under Section 12B of the Act that its principal office had been shifted from Shastri Nagar to Kharia Khangar which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the CTO, Special Circle I, Jodhpur and as such the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle II, Jodhpur (CTO) has no jurisdiction to issue the said notices and prayed for the transfer of the cases to CTO, Special Circle I, Jodhpur. These applications were received in his office on November 13, 1992. Again an application was moved on November 17, 1992 requesting him to decide the said applications first as they go to the root of the matter. 3. The case of the Company is that the C110 did not fix the said applications for hearing and he did not hear its authorised representatives before rejecting them and passing said ex-parte assessment orders. On November 23, 1992, its Senior Accounts Officer Nirmal Ostwal and authorised representative T.P. Gaggar C.A. appeared before him and invited his attention towards the said application dated November 17, 1992. They were intimated by the CTO that he had referred the said applications to the Additional Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur and their cases would be taken after his (Additional Commissioner) decision on the said applications. Subsequently, the Company learnt that the CTO had rejected their applications on November 23, 1992 and had passed the said ex-parte assessment orders. 4. The Company filed its appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur. After hearing the authorised representatives of the parties, the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed them by his common order dated January 7, 1993 accepting the said version of the CTO. The Company filed second appeals before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer. 4. The Company filed its appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur. After hearing the authorised representatives of the parties, the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed them by his common order dated January 7, 1993 accepting the said version of the CTO. The Company filed second appeals before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer. They were heard by a Division Bench consisting of the Chairman Shri G.J. Mishra and the Judicial Member Shri P.C. Jain. Both appeals were allowed, said ex-parte assessment orders and common appellate order were set aside and the cases were remanded to the CTO, Special Circle I, Jodhpur, as said above. 5. It may be mentioned here that during these proceedings Company filed two writ petitions and two special appeals against the order passed in the writ petitions. Order was passed by this Court for the refund of the amounts deposited by the Company. 6. It has been contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Department that the Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that limitation for the purpose of Section 12B of the Act cannot be counted from the date of the receipt by the Company of the notice issued under Section 22(1) of the Act and the applications dated November 12, 1992 moved under Section 12B of the Act by the Company were within limitation. He further contended that the Tribunal seriously erred to hold that the affidavit of the CTO Sri Ram Ratan as not reliable, the said authorised representatives of the Company, Nirmal stwal and T.P. Gaggar C.A., were not present when the order-sheets dated November 23, 1992 of the cases were written by the CTO and they did not refuse to put than it initials as they were never asked to do so. He lastly contended that the Tribunal did not correctly appreciate that the limitation for passing assessment orders under Section 7B of the Act was six months from the date of detection of the evasion. 7. Learned counsel for the Company duly supported the common order of the Tribunal and supplemented it with additional reasons. He lastly contended that the Tribunal did not correctly appreciate that the limitation for passing assessment orders under Section 7B of the Act was six months from the date of detection of the evasion. 7. Learned counsel for the Company duly supported the common order of the Tribunal and supplemented it with additional reasons. He contended that a comparative study of the order-sheets dated November 23, 1992 of both the cases with the assessment orders dated 24th and 26th November, 1992 passed in these cases leaves no manner of doubt that the impugned order-sheets were not in fact written on November 23,1992 otherwise their reference would have been made in the assessment orders and the matters which had already been decided by the said order- sheets would not have again been decided by the said assessment orders. He also contended that the refusal to put initials on the order-sheets by said Nirmal Ostwal and 'EP. Gaggar was an unusual event and a note to this effect would have been made just below the order-sheets dated November 23, 1992 and the same would have also been referred to in the assessment orders if they would have actually done so. He further contended that there was no question of raising dispute regarding jurisdiction on the receipt of notice under section 22(1) of the Act on June 10, 1992 as the Company had no cause to move such an application as it shifted its principal office from Shastri Nagar to Kharia Khangar in July, 1992 after its production started. He also contended that the Company was simply required to intimate the change of its place of business as required under Section 8(b) of the Act, no provision of the Act or Rules made thereunder empowered the CTO to adjudicate upon it, T.P. Gaggar did not make any statement on September 14, 1992 that the principal office remained at Shastri Nagar and if it would have been so, three applications would not have been moved subsequently stating that the place of business has been shifted from Shastri Nagar to Kharia Khangar. It was further contended by him that the assessing authority inspected the account-books of the Company on more than 16 dates ranging over 4 months but he was not pleased to grant even three dates to the company for filing its replies and documents when, according to him, the Company during these periods had dealings with about 100 firms, all over the country. He lastly contended that the assessing authority has not dealt with each transaction which according to him was not a branch transfer but was an inter-state sale as required in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, AIR 1970 SC 1281 . 8. In reply to the aforesaid contentions of Sri Mehta, Sri Rajvanshi contended that after the cognizance of the case was taken by the CTO under section 22(1) of the Act, his jurisdiction could not be challenged. He also contended that even after certain matters were decided by the order-sheets of November 23, 1992, the same were again repeated in the assessment orders dated November 24, 1992 and November 26, 1992 as by the order-sheets they were not decided in detail and in any view of the matter it cannot be said that the order-sheets dated November 23, 1992 were not in fact written on November 23, 1992. 9. The first question for consideration is about the limitation for the purpose of Section 12B of the Act. Admittedly, the Company sent letter under Section 8(b) of the Act on August 1, 1992 stating that it had shifted its administrative office from Shastri Nagar to Kharia Khangar and not on any earlier date. It is also the admitted case of the parties that the notice issued under Section 22(1) was received by the Company on June 10, 1992. The Company had no cause of action to submit a memorandum raising dispute regarding his territorial jurisdiction before the CTO on June 10, 1992 or by July 9, 1992. It is case of the company that it shifted its office after July 10, 1992. As such there was no question of the commencement of the limitation for submitting memorandum under Section 1213 raising dispute regarding jurisdiction of the CTO, Special Circle H, Jodhpur by July 10, 1992. 10. It is case of the company that it shifted its office after July 10, 1992. As such there was no question of the commencement of the limitation for submitting memorandum under Section 1213 raising dispute regarding jurisdiction of the CTO, Special Circle H, Jodhpur by July 10, 1992. 10. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that limitation for the purpose of Section 1213 would not start from the date of the receipt of the notice issued under Section 22(1) of the Act. Any person not below the rank of an Inspector, Commercial Taxes Department, authorised by the Commissioner under Section 22(1), can enter the business premises of a dealer, inspect his records and seize his account-books. There can be no question of the challenge of his territorial jurisdiction under Section 12B of the Act as he can be of any area or circle of Rajasthan. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that the limitation commenced from the date of the service of the notices issued under Section 7B of the Act. It is not in dispute that the notices were received by the Company on October 14, 1992 and applications under Section 12B were received by the CTO on November 11, 1992. Thus the CTO, Special Circle II, Jodhpur committed serious illegality in holding that these applications were beyond limitation. 11. The order of the CTO dated September 14, 1992 rejecting the application dated August 1, 1992 moved under Section 8(b) of the Act and not effecting amendment in the Registration Certificate is also illegal. Section 8(b) of the Act simply required the Company to intimate the change of the place of its business. No adjudication of the assessing authority was required in this matter. It is stated in the said ex-parte assessment orders and also in the order-sheets dated November 23, 1992 that on September 14, 1992 Shri T.P. Gaggar appeared for and on behalf of the Company before him and he stated that only administrative office has been shifted from Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur to Kharia Khangar and the principal place of business had remained there. Admittedly, the statement of T.P. Gaggar was not recorded by the CTO. The order-sheet dated September 14, 1992 of the file of R.C. cover does not mention that T.P. Gaggar stated so before him. It records his findings to this effect. Admittedly, the statement of T.P. Gaggar was not recorded by the CTO. The order-sheet dated September 14, 1992 of the file of R.C. cover does not mention that T.P. Gaggar stated so before him. It records his findings to this effect. It runs as under : 14-9-92 Jh Vh0ih0 ?k?kM+ vf/kd`r izfrfuf/k mifLFkr gq;s O;olk;h }kjk ewy iath;u izek.k&i= esa la'kks/ku gsrq vkosnu is'k fd;kA O;olk;h }kjk viuh Administrative Office [kkfj;k [kaxkj LFkkukUrfjr fd;k gS rFkk Principal place of business Mh&12 'kkL=h uxj gh gS vr% ewy izkFkZuk i= esa la'kks/ku djus dh vko';drk ugha gSA vr% ewy iath;u izek.k i= O;olk;h dks ykSVk;k tkosA If it would have been so, the Company would not have moved applications on November 11, 1992 and also on November 17, 1992 clearly stating that the principal office of the company had been shifted from Shastri Nagar to Kharia Khangar. It may also be mentioned here that in the 'Application for Registration' moved under Section 7(1)/7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act by the Company on October 16, 1985 in the third column of principal place of business, it had been stated "A-240, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Project Administrative Office)". It means that the Company considered its Administrative office as its principal place of business. It is also to be noted that in the order-sheet of July 4, 1992 it is mentioned that T.P. Gaggar CA. disclosed that the men of the company could not bring records of the company from Kharia Khangar. This also supports the case of the company. The CTO rejected the said application dated August 1, 1992 moved under Section 8(b) of the Act also on the ground that he went to the offices of the company situated at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur and Kharia Khangar,on June 6, 1992 for the survey and inspection of the account-books, the responsible officers of the company intimated him that the entire records relating to accounts were at Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur and the same were produced before him when he went there the same day. As already observed above, it is the case of the company that it shifted its principal office from Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur to Kharia Khangar after production started in July, 1992. Admittedly, application under section 8(b) of the Act was moved on August 1, 1992 and not on any prior date. Obviously, this ground is not tenable. 12. As already observed above, it is the case of the company that it shifted its principal office from Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur to Kharia Khangar after production started in July, 1992. Admittedly, application under section 8(b) of the Act was moved on August 1, 1992 and not on any prior date. Obviously, this ground is not tenable. 12. The next question for consideration is whether order-sheets dated November 23, 1992 were in fact written on November 23, 1992. There is a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. Such a presumption cannot be raised in these cases. It is the case of the parties that affidavits were filed in the writ petition by the said authorised representatives of the company, Nirmal Ostwal and T.P. Gaggar that the order-sheets dated November 23, 1992 were not written on November 23, 1992 in their presence by the CTO and they did not refuse to put their initials on them and the CTO Sri Ram Ratan filed his affidavit that the said order-sheets were written on November 23, 1992 in presence of these authorised representatives of the company and they refused to put their initials on them when he asked them to do so. After elaborate discussions in para 24 of its order, the learned Tribunal has held that the affidavit of the CTO Shri Ram Ratan is unreliable. A perusal of the order-sheets dated November 23, 1992 of both the cases shows that on November 23, 1992 the CTO had decided in detail the following matters : (1) Memorandums moved under Section 12B dated 11th and 12th November, 1992 raising dispute about his jurisdiction were time barred and accordingly they were not referred to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur. (2) Registration Certificate was returned to T.P. Gaggar C.A. without carrying out amendment in it regarding the place of business as the application dated August 1, 1992 moved under section 8(b) of the Act was not pressed on September 14, 1992 by T.P. Gaggar. (3) The company failed to file replies to the notices despite several opportunities, there was no option but to proceed ex-parte against it and accordingly 24th/26th November, 1992 were fixed for ex-parte orders. Even the rulings of the Board of Revenue have been mentioned in the order-sheets dated November 23, 1992. 13. (3) The company failed to file replies to the notices despite several opportunities, there was no option but to proceed ex-parte against it and accordingly 24th/26th November, 1992 were fixed for ex-parte orders. Even the rulings of the Board of Revenue have been mentioned in the order-sheets dated November 23, 1992. 13. A perusal of pages 12, 13 and 14 of the assessment orders dated 24th and 26th November, 1992 shows that all these three matters have again been decided in detail in the same manner by these assessment orders. There was absolutely no necessity of deciding the aforesaid three matters on 24th/26th November, 1992 by the ex-parte assessment orders when they had earlier been decided in detail on November 23, 1992. It may also be mentioned here that there is absolutely no reference of these order- sheets of November 23, 1992 in any of the assessment orders dated 24th/26th November, 1992. This fact alone greatly supports the affidavits of Nirmal Ostwal and T.P. Gaggar, authorised representatives of the company, that the order-sheets dated November 23, 1992 Were not written in their presence on November 23, 1992 when they appeared before the CTO. The learned Tribunal has rightly observed that if Nirmal Ostwal and T.P. Gaggar would have refused to put their initials on these order-sheets this fact would have been noted by the CTO in them. This unusual event has no reference in the assessment orders running in 30 pages each. To say the least, it is prima facie established that the CTO Shri Ram Ratan has given false affidavit and has made false documents, namely, order-sheets dated November 23, 1992. In the interest of justice and for the eradication of such evil practice, it is expedient and necessary that a complaint should be filed against him under section 193, 196, 471 and 477A, I.P.C. after serving a show cause notice upon him. 14. The third question for consideration is whether the C.T.O. was justified to pass ex-parte orders. Notice under Section 7B of the Act were issued the Company on October 12 and 13, 1992 for October 29, 1992. On the requests for adjournments of the authorised representatives of the company, 31.10.92, 6.11.92 and 23.11.92 were fixed for filling replies. Admittedly, ex-parte assessment orders were passed on 24th and 26th November, 1992. Notice under Section 7B of the Act were issued the Company on October 12 and 13, 1992 for October 29, 1992. On the requests for adjournments of the authorised representatives of the company, 31.10.92, 6.11.92 and 23.11.92 were fixed for filling replies. Admittedly, ex-parte assessment orders were passed on 24th and 26th November, 1992. The C.T.O. himself took more than four months in the inspection of the records of the company. During this period, he fixed more than 15 dates and examined the records in his office. According to the ex-parte assessment orders, the company had dealings during the aforesaid periods with about 100 dealers, all over India. As such there was no justification for the C.T.O. to proceed ex-parte against the Company particularly when he had told its authorised representatives that the applications moved under Section 12B had been referred to the Commissioner and the latter could extend the period by six months to complete the assessment under Section 7B of the Act. 15. There is yet another aspect of the matter. In the ex-parte orders, the C.T.O. has not dealt with each individual transaction of sale/transfer of cement. It has been observed in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and another, AIR 1970 SC 1281 at page 1286 para 12 , as follows: "Another serious infirmity in the order of the Assistant Commissioner was (a matter which even the Advocate-General quite fairly had to concede) that instead of looking into each transaction in order to find out whether a completed contract of sale had taken place which could be brought to the tax only if the movement of vehicles from Jamshedpur had been occasioned under a covenant or incident of that contract the Assistant Commissioner based his order on mere generalities. It has been suggested that all the transactions were of similar nature and the appellant's representative and himself submitted that a specimen transaction alone need be examined. In our judgment this was a wholly wrong procedure to follow and the Assistant Commissioner, on whom the duty lay of assessing the tax in accordance with law, was bound to examine each individual transaction and then decide whether it constituted an inter-State sale exigible to tax under the provisions of the Act." On I his ground also, the ex-parte assessment orders and common appellate order confirming them deserved to be quashed. 16. 16. In the result, the revision petitions are dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 3,000/- each. Common order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer dated July 13, 1993 is affirmed. The assessing authority will comply with the above quoted observations of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court made in Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, AIR 1970 SC 1281 at page 1286 para 12 , while passing the assessment orders afresh. 17. Let notice be issued to the Commercial Taxes Officer Shri Ram Ratan to show cause, as to why a complaint be not filed, against him under Sections 193, 196, 471 and 477A, I.P.C. A separate file will be opened for this purpose. 18. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur inviting his attention towards paras 12 and 13 of this order for necessary action against Shri Ram Ratan Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle II, Jodhpur.Revision Dismissed-Notice issued to show cause why complaint be not filed under sections 193, 196, 471 and 477-A Penal Code. *******