Back
1991 Supreme(P&H) 408
G.C. Mital, H.S. Bedi, JJ.
KENAPO TEXTILES PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
Civil Writ Petition No. 4191 of 1989
Decided On: Decided On : 16-04-1991
R. C. Dogra, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Dogra and Rajesh Bindal, Advocates, with him), for the petitioners.
S. C. Mohunta, Advocate-General (Haryana) and S. K. Sood, Additional Advocate-General (Haryana), for the respondents.
Once one of the two officers starts the assessment proceedings, the other officer cannot start the same. If the officer who started the proceedings later on gets the information that the proceedings have already been started by the other officer, he has to stay his hands.
Headnote:
HARYANA GENERAL SALES TAX ACT, 1973 - SECTION 2(A), 3, 7 - JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING AUTHORITY - NOTIFICATION APPOINTING EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER (ANTI EVASION SQUAD) TO PERFORM DUTIES OF ASSESSING AUTHORITY THROUGHOUT THE STATE - VALIDITY - PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY DISTRICT ASSESSING AUTHORITY - SUBSEQUENT INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER (ANTI EVASION SQUAD) - JURISDICTION - TRANSFER OF CASES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, engaged in job-work of processing, bleaching, and printing grey cloth, challenged the jurisdiction of the Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti Evasion Squad) (AES) to frame assessment against them. The AES was appointed by the State Government under section 3 and clause (a) of section 2 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (the Act), to assist the Commissioner and perform the duties of an Assessing Authority throughout the State. The petitioners contended that the District Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority had already initiated proceedings against them and, therefore, the AES could not initiate parallel proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that both the District Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and the AES had jurisdiction to make the assessment. However, once one of them started the assessment proceedings, the other officer could not start the same. The Court further held that if the officer who started the proceedings later on got the information that the proceedings had already been started by the other officer, he had to stay his hands. The Court also held that the authority named in rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Act had the jurisdiction to transfer the pending proceedings to the other officer.
Issues: 1. Whether the notification appointing the AES to perform the duties of an Assessing Authority throughout the State was valid. 2. Whether the AES could initiate assessment proceedings against the petitioners when the District Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority had already started proceedings against them.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the notification appointing the AES was valid as it was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 and clause (a) of section 2 of the Act. 2. The Court held that once one of the two officers started the assessment proceedings, the other officer could not start the same. The Court further held that if the officer who started the proceedings later on got the information that the proceedings had already been started by the other officer, he had to stay his hands. However, the authority named in rule 7 of the Rules framed under the Act had the jurisdiction to transfer the pending proceedings to the other officer.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the notices issued by the AES and held that the District Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority would have jurisdiction to frame the assessment and could continue the proceedings until the same were got transferred under rule 7 to the AES or some other officers competent to frame the assessment.
G. C. MITAL, AG. C.J. - The petitioners are carrying on the business of job-work of grey cloth supplied by customers which, after processing into fine cloth, bleaching and printing, is returned to the owners of grey cloth. They also purchase grey cloth and after processing it into fine cloth, bleaching and printing, sell the same. Until April 17, 1984, the material used for job-work, that is, processing, bleaching and printing, was not liable to sales tax but from April 18, 1984, due to certain constitutional amendments and the amendments carried out by the State of Haryana in the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the material used in the job-work became liable to sales tax with effect from April 1, 1987. The vires of the amended provisions of the Act have been upheld by the Supreme Court in Builders Association of India v. Union of India [1989] 73 STC 370. Accordingly, we are not concerned with the vires in this case.
2. The Excise and Taxation Officer, Faridabad, who is the Assessing Authority, took up the case for assessment of sales tax in respect of the two petitioners with effect from April 1, 1987, the date from which the provisions of the Act were made applicable. While proceedings were pending before the aforesaid officer, Shri M. S. Hooda, Excise and Taxation Officer, was designated as Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority (AES) for the entire State of Haryana, including Faridabad. (AES stands for Anti Evasion Squad). Shri M. S. Hooda also issued notices, annexures P. 1 and P. 2, to the petitioners to frame assessment against them. In their replies contained in annexures P. 3 and P. 4, they challenged his jurisdiction on various grounds. Now, notices, annexures P. 1 and P. 2, have been challenged in this writ petition.
3. Under the Act, it is the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority of the district who has jurisdiction to frame assessment and in each district the State of Haryana has appointed an Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority. However, power is vested in the State Government, by virtue of section 3 and clause (a) of section 2 of the Act to appoint Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti Evasion Squad) in the Excise and Taxation Department to assist the Commissioner, Haryana, and to perform the duties of an Assessing Authority within the meaning of clause (a) of section 2 of the Act, throughout the State of Haryana. The Governor of Haryana issued Notification dated 19th of May, 1989, vide No. S.O.76/H.A.20/73/S.3/89, under the aforesaid provision appointing Shri M. S. Hooda for performing the duties of an Assessing Authority throughout the State of Haryana.
4. A similar notification issued under the Punjab Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Devi Dass Gopal Krishan v. State of Punjab [1973] 31 STC 536 and the validity thereof was upheld by this Court.
5. For the detailed reasons given in that decision, we find no error in the notification appointing Shri M. S. Hooda as the Assessing Authority (AES) to perform his duties throughout the State of Haryana.
6. The next question arises that once the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority of the District had already started proceedings and were pending, could Shri M. S. Hooda initiate similar proceedings thereafter.
7. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that for the assessees within the district of Faridabad, the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Faridabad, as well as Shri M. S. Hooda, Excise and Taxation Officer (AES) will have the jurisdiction to make the assessment.
Whosoever starts the proceedings first, those proceedings will go on and the second authority would not be justified in starting the proceedings or continuing with the same once the authority who started the proceedings later on is informed that the proceedings by the other officer have already been initiated. For avoiding conflict
