1970 Supreme(All) 21
Allahbad High Court
B.D.GUPTA,SATISHCHANDRA,R.L.GULATI
Shyam Manohar Dixit - Appellant
Versus
Sales Tax Officer, Sector IV Kanpur - Respondent
Decided On : 01/30/1970
P.N. Pachauri, for Petitioner; Standing Counsel, for Respondents.
A Sales Tax Officer appointed to a circle automatically becomes the assessing authority for that circle and no separate authorization from the State Government is needed.
Headnote:
U. P. SALES TAX ACT - SECTION 2 (A) - AUTHORISATION OF ASSESSING AUTHORITY - SALES TAX OFFICER APPOINTED TO A CIRCLE AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR THAT CIRCLE - NO SEPARATE AUTHORISATION NEEDED FROM STATE GOVERNMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Four assessment orders under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, all dated March 20, 1963, were challenged on the ground that the Sales Tax Officer who made the assessments was not authorized by the State Government to do so, as required by Section 2 (a) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a Sales Tax Officer appointed to a circle automatically becomes the assessing authority for that circle and that no separate authorization from the State Government is needed.
Issues: Whether a Sales Tax Officer can make an assessment without his having been specifically authorized to do so?
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 2 (a) of the Act and the relevant rules to hold that a Sales Tax Officer is automatically vested with the power to make assessments by virtue of his appointment to a circle and that Rule 6 (a) constitutes the Sales Tax Officer as the 'assessing authority' for making any assessment under the Act.
Final Decision: The court answered the question referred to it in the affirmative, holding that the Sales Tax Officer had jurisdiction to make the impugned assessments.
GULATI, J. :- In this group of four writ petitions, four assessment orders under the U. P. Sales Tax Act, all dated March 20, 1963 have been challenged. The assessment orders were made by Sri L. L. Merh, Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur. They were challenged on the ground that Sri Merh had not been authorised by the State Government to make any assessment under the Act in accordance with Section 2 (a) of the Act and as such the impugned orders were without jurisdiction. In support of this contention reliance was placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow v. Punjab Trading Co. Ltd. Bhatinda, Sales Tax Ref. No. 276 of 1957, D/-11-4-1963 : (reported in ILR (1963) 2 All 303). On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance was placed upon the decision of another Division Bench in State v. Dull Chand, AIR 1967 All 349 and the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Agarwal Vastra Bhandar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax U. P. Lucknow Misc. Case No. 51 of 1962. D/-17-8-1966 : (reported in ILR (1967) 1 All 108). As the bench hearing these petitions was of the opinion that there appeared to be a conflict between the decisions relied upon by the two sides, it referred the following question for the decision to a larger Bench:
"Whether in these four cases Sri L. L. Merh, Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur had jurisdiction to pass the four assessment orders, dated 20-3-1963?"
That is how these petitions have now come before this Full Bench:
2. The whole argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is based upon the definition of the term 'assessing authority' as contained in Cl. (a) of Section 2 of the Act, according to which 'assessing authority' means any person authorised by the State Government to make any assessment under this Act. He has referred to two notifications. The first is notification No. ST-602/X-1013(2)/53, dated March 21, 1953 under which Sri Merh was appointed as Sales Tax Officer for the first time. This notification reads :-
"With effect from February 25, 1953, Sri L. L. Merh, Asstt. Sales Tax Officer is appointed to officiate as Sales Tax Officer, Kheri vice Shri S. S. Sharma." The second notification is notification No. ST-2815/X-915-61, dated July 5, 1961 published in the U. P. Gazette dated July 15, 1961. This notification contains a list of officers who were transferred from one circle to another. At serial No. 13 of this notification appears the name of Sri L. L. Merh who was transferred from circle Deoria to circle Kanpur. Sri Pachauri contends that neither of the two notifications contains an authorisation in favour of Sri L. L. Merh to make an assessment under the Act as required by Section 2 (a). He then referred to certain rules framed under the Act and contended that the rules contemplate the appointment of a person as Sales Tax Officer but none of the rules expressly authorises the Sales Tax Officer to make an assessment. According to him, there was a lacuna which was pointed out by this Court in the case of M/s. Punjab Trading Co. Ltd. (supra) and in order to fill up this lacuna, Rule 3-B was added which provided that "subject to the provisions of Rule 6, all Sales Tax Officers shall be assessing authorities and they are authorised to make assessments under the Act." This rule was added on September 26, 1964. It was prospective and could not be availed of to justify the impugned assessment which were made on March 20, 1963. The short question, therefore, that arises is as to what was the position before the addition of Rule 3-B. Could a Sales Tax Officer make an assessment without his having been specifically authorised to do so?
3. The authorisation contemplated by Section 2 (a) can be made by a general order, by a special order or under the rules framed by the State Government. Section 24 (1) empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. Clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (2) of Section 24 enumerates certain matt