Important Point
Exercise of jurisdiction in a wrongful manner cannot result in a nullity because it is an illegality, capable of being cured in a duly constituted legal proceedings.

Headnote:(a)Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 – Section 29(8)(b) – If an assessment order is set aside by an Appellate Authority, fresh assessment has to be completed within a period of two years from the date of communication of the order in appeal to the Assessing Authority and not from the date of order in appeal – Impugned order passed within time. (Paras 12 and 13)
       (b)Words and Phrases – Null and void, and irregular, wrong or illegal – There is a fine distinction between the orders which are null and void and orders which are irregular, wrong or illegal - Where an authority making order lacks inherent jurisdiction, such order would be without jurisdiction, null, non est and void ab initio – Defect of jurisdiction of an authority cannot be cured even by consent of the parties - However, exercise of jurisdiction in a wrongful manner cannot result in a nullity – It is an illegality, capable of being cured in a duly constituted legal proceedings. (Para 15)
       AIR 1954 SC 340; (2004) 1 SCC 287 - Relied upon.
       (c)Judicial Review – Proceedings for assessment under a fiscal statute are not in the nature of judicial proceedings inasmuch as the assessing officer does not adjudicate on a lis between an assessee and the State – Therefore, the law on the issue laid down under the civil law may not stricto sensu apply to assessment proceedings. (Para 16)
       (d)Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 – Section 29 (8) (b) – Assessments orders in question could not be held to be null and void on account of the stated irregularities committed by the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings – No infirmity in High Court order. (Para 18)
       Facts of the case:
       1.The appellant, a proprietorship concern, is a dealer under the Act. For the assessment year 1995-96, an ex-parte assessment was framed on 19th May, 1998. On appeal, the order of assessment was set aside by competent authority.
       2.In pursuance of thereof, a fresh notice was issued to the appellant for appearance on 12th February, 2002 which date was extended to 29th June, 2002.
       3.On 29th June, 2002 when the appellant appeared before the Assessing Officer, he is said to have been told that the assessment order had already been passed on 7th June, 2002.
       4.Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said order by preferring a writ petition, which was dismissed.
       5.The correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge was questioned by the appellant before the Division Bench which allowed the appeal.
       Findings of the Court:
       There is no infirmity in the order of the Division Bench of the High Court.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The exercise of jurisdiction in a wrongful manner does not render an order null and void; rather, such illegality can be remedied through proper legal proceedings (!) .
Orders made without inherent jurisdiction are considered null and void ab initio, whereas orders resulting from exercise of wrongful jurisdiction are illegal but not necessarily null and void, and can be cured (!) .
Proceedings for assessment under fiscal statutes are not judicial in nature and do not involve adjudication of disputes between parties; therefore, the law applicable to judicial proceedings may not directly apply (!) .
An irregular, wrong, or illegal order, where the authority had jurisdiction, is not automatically null and void. Such an order can be challenged and rectified through appropriate legal channels, unless it is void due to lack of jurisdiction from the outset (!) (!) .
An assessment order passed within the statutory time limit, even if irregular or tainted by procedural errors, is not necessarily null and void. Such irregularities do not automatically invalidate the order if the authority had jurisdiction (!) (!) .
The distinction exists between orders that are null and void due to lack of jurisdiction and those that are illegal or irregular but made within jurisdiction. The former are incurably null, while the latter can be cured or rectified (!) .
The assessment proceedings are not akin to judicial proceedings, and irregularities during the process do not automatically result in nullity unless they involve a fundamental lack of jurisdiction (!) .
If an assessment order is set aside by an appellate authority, the fresh assessment must be completed within the prescribed statutory period from the communication of the appellate order. Passing the assessment within this period is valid, even if the assessment order appears to be anti-dated, provided it falls within the statutory time frame (!) (!) .
The Court emphasizes that procedural irregularities or errors committed during assessment proceedings, while improper, do not necessarily render the orders null and void if the authority had jurisdiction and the assessment was completed within the statutory period (!) .
Ultimately, the Court upheld that the directions for fresh assessments, after setting aside the earlier orders due to procedural irregularities, were justified and within legal bounds, and dismissed the appeals accordingly (!) (!) (!) .

Judgment

D.K. Jain, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.These two sets of appeals, by special leave, are directed against the Judgments and Orders dated 4th May, 2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writs) No.900/2002 and Order dated 15th July, 2005 passed in Review Petition No.8/2005 in Civil Special Appeal No.900/2002. By the impugned main Orders, the Division Bench, while allowing the appeals, has set aside the assessment Orders passed under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 and has remanded the cases for fresh assessments by a new Assessing Officer, to be nominated by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan.

3.Though the appeals pertain to two assessment years but are inter-connected insofar as the decision in appeal pertaining to the assessment year 1996-97 will depend upon the decision in appeal for the year 1995-96 because in its Order for the latter year, the High Court has substantially relied on its Order for the earlier year. Therefore, we propose to dispose of both the appeals by this common Order. However, we shall refer to the facts emerging from the record for the assessment year 1995-96.

4.The appellant, a proprietorship concern, is a dealer under the Act. For the assessment year 1995-96, an ex-parte assessment was framed on 19th May, 1998. On appeal, the Order of assessment was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order dated 8th June, 2000 on the ground that proper opportunity of hearing had not been granted to the appellant. In pursuance of the said Order, a fresh notice was issued to the appellant for appearance on 12th February, 2002. On the said date at the request of the appellant, the case was adjourned to 14th March, 2002 and then to 23rd March, 2002, when the appellant again sought time for collecting the requisite details/ information and he was granted three months’ time for the said purpose. The case was fixed on 25th June, 2002.

5.According to the appellant, he appeared before the Assessing Officer on 25th June, 2002 and requested for some more time to furnish the bank statements etc. and the case was accordingly kept for 29th June, 2002. However, on 29th June, 2002, when the appellant appeared before the Assessing Officer, he is said to have been told that the assessment Order had already been passed on 7th June, 2002.

6.Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said Order by preferring a writ petition. In the writ petition, it was alleged that the assessment Order was anti-dated and in fact the same was passed on 29th June, 2002, by which date the period of limitation was over. Interpolation in the Order sheets dated 23rd March, 2002 and 25th June, 2002 was alleged and it was also stated that the appellant was coerced to countersign the cuttings and tempering in the Order sheets. However, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in limine, inter alia, on the ground that if the writ petitioner had any grievance that the proceedings had not been recorded correctly, he could have drawn the attention of the Presiding Officer towards such errors while the matter was still fresh to his mind. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to bring the alleged anomalies to the notice of the Assessing Officer and simultaneously, if so advised, he could challenge the assessment Order by filing appeal before the Appellate Authority.

7.The correctness of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge was questioned by the appellant before the Division Bench. On perusal of the original records, particularly Order sheets dated 23rd March, 2002 and 25th June, 2002, the learned Judges felt convinced that some over-writings and interpolations in the Order sheets had taken place. They observed thus :

“In these circumstances, the assertions made by the assessee in his petition about tempering with the record of the proceedi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 1044

Important PointExercise of jurisdiction in a wrongful manner cannot result in a nullity because it is an illegality, capable of being cured in a duly constituted legal proceedings.

Cases Referred (2)

Important Point
Exercise of jurisdiction in a wrongful manner cannot result in a nullity because it is an illegality, capable of being cured in a duly constituted legal proceedings.