P. N. KIRPAL, J. (ORAL) :

( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the order of assessment which is passed by the respondents under the Central Sales Tax Act seeking to tax certain turn over of the petitioner in respect of the assessment year 1974-75.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that. the petitioner, in the year relevant to the assessment year 1974-75, had been exporting goods from India to USSR through the State Trading Corporation. The Value of the goods so exported during that year came to Rs. 9,11,500. 00.

( 3 ) THE petitioner filed its sales tax returns under the provisions of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, under the local act and also under the Central Sales Tax Act. Two orders were passed on 10th April, 1978. The aforesaid sales, which according to the petitioner-herein were in the course of export, were sought to be taxed under the local Act. Under the Central Sales Tax Act another order dated 10th April, 1978 was passed. As per the said order there was no tax payable under the Central Sales Tax Act.

( 4 ) THE petitioner filed one appeal against the assessment order pertaining to the local tax. By order dated 16th September, 1982 the Assistant Commissioner observed that the aforesaid turn over was taxable under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, and not under the local Act. He further observed that the orders under the Central Sales Tax Act needed revision by the competent authority.

( 5 ) NO action was taken by the Sales Tax Authorities pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 16th September, 1982 to revise the assessment order dated 10th April, 1978 under the Central Sales Tax Act. An appeal was, however, preferred against the said order dated 16th September. 1982 and I am informed that the appellate authority has affirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner though a reference is now pending.

( 6 ) THE Sales Tax Officer then passed the impugned order dated 12th September, 1986 under section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act read with Section 23 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act. The said order was passed by treating the case as one which had been remanded to him. This is so stated in the assessment order itself. Presuming that the case had been remanded to the Sales Tax Officer, he, following the decision, dated 16th September, 1982 of the Assistant Commissioner, assessed the petitioner to tax under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and has raised the impugned demand of Rs. 91,150. 00. It is this demand which is now sought to be impugned in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 7 ) ORDINARILY this Court. would not have interfered in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution because an alternative remedy was available to the petitioner. This, however, is a case where, as would be evident, the assessing authority has assumed jurisdiction where he had none.

( 8 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the original assessment order under the Central Sales Tax Act having become final on 10th April, 1978, the assessing authority could not pass the impugned order dated 18th September, 1986 by treating this as a remand case. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the proceedings were still alive and the assessing authority had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order either by virtue of the provisions of section 46 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act or section 48 (6) of the said Act.

( 9 ) THE proceedings under the Delhi Sales Tax Act and under the Central Sales Tax Act are independent of each other. Separate returns have to be filed under the two Acts and separate assessment orders are passed. It is true that in some cases orders may be inter-related, inter-linked or interconnected because a controversy may arise as to whether a particular type of sale is taxable under the local Act or Central Sales Tax Act. Nevertheless, the two proceedings are independent of each other though the procedure for imposing tax under the Central Sales Tax Act. which ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document