Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1100 (ALL)

COMMISSIONER, SALES TAX v. GORAKHPUR SPUN PIPE

2000-08-25

R.K.AGRAWAL

body2000
R. K. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) THE Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. , Lucknow, feeling aggrieved by the order dated november 17, 1990, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Gorakhpur Bench, Gorakhpur, in second appeal No. 1034 of 1998 (1981-82) has preferred this revision under Section 11 of the U. P. Sales tax Act, 1948 (now Trade Tax Act) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the opposite party is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act and is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of cement spun pipe. It appears that the assessee was earlier registered as dealer with the Sales Tax Officer, Sector 4, gorakhpur. However on April 1, 1981, the principal place of business was declared by the assessee at Varanasi and it had also obtained registration from the Sales Tax Officer, Varanasi, and office at Gorakhpur was shown as its branch. From the perusal of the Tribunals order it appears that the Sales Tax Officer, Gorakhpur, had initiated proceedings under Section 7 (3) of the Act for the assessment year 1981-82 but had closed the file making endorsement that the firm of the assessee had been shifted to Varanasi. Thus, no assessment order against the assessee, was passed. Subsequently, the proceedings under Section 21 were initiated by the Sales Tax Officer, sector 4, Gorakhpur, who vide order dated September 26, 1986 had passed assessment order imposing tax liability to the tune of Rs. 80,000 on escaped turnover of Rs. 10,00,000. The said order was challenged in first appeal filed by the assessee before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who vide order dated July 28, 1988 had accepted the contention of the assessee that the sales Tax Officer, Sector 4, Gorakhpur, had no jurisdiction to pass assessment order. Consequently, he allowed the appeal and set aside the assessment order passed under Section 21 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Commissioner of Sales Tax had preferred the appeal under Section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order has dismissed the appeal. ( 3 ) I have heard Shri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Commissioner of Sales Tax had preferred the appeal under Section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order has dismissed the appeal. ( 3 ) I have heard Shri B. K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the applicant. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Sales Tax Officer, Sector 4, gorakhpur, had jurisdiction to pass assessment order under Section 21 of the Act inasmuch as proceedings under Section 7 (3) of the Act were initiated by him. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, was not able to show that the Sales Tax Officer, Sector 4, Gorakhpur, had passed any assessment order. From the perusal of the order of the Tribunal, it appears that the file was closed without passing any assessment order. The Sales Tax Officer, Sector 4, could have got the jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act and also to pass assessment order only if he had passed earlier assessment order as provided in Explanation II to section 21 (1) of the Act. In absence of any assessment order having been passed by the Sales tax Officer, Sector 4, Gorakhpur, the said authority had no jurisdiction to pass assessment order as territorial jurisdiction in respect of the assessee is with the Sales Tax Officer, Varanasi and not with the Sales Tax Officer, Sector 4, Gorakhpur from assessment year 1981-82. ( 5 ) IN the result, there is no legal infirmity in the order dated November 17, 1990. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed. .