Back
1965 Supreme(All) 64
Allahbad High Court
S.CHANDRA
Khurjawala Buckles Mfg. Co., Aligarh - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P. Lucknow - Respondent
Decided On : 04/08/1965
Hari Swarup, for Petitioner; Standing Counsel, for Respondent.
Bias of an assessing officer vitiates the assessment orders and renders them null and void.
Headnote:
SALES TAX - Assessment - Bias of Assessing Officer - Assessment orders passed by an officer who suffered from bias against the petitioner are null and void.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a manufacturer and seller of buckles, challenged the validity of four assessment orders passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer (Sri V. D. Singh) under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62, and 1962-63. The petitioner alleged that Sri V. D. Singh was biased against him due to an incident that occurred during a survey conducted by Sri V. D. Singh at the petitioner's business premises, which led to the petitioner's criminal prosecution. The petitioner also alleged that Sri V. D. Singh had put wrong dates on the petitioner's account books and had threatened him with prosecution under the U. P. Sales Tax Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Sri V. D. Singh had a personal bias against the petitioner and that he could not have taken part in the assessment proceedings. The court held that the assessment orders were vitiated and null and void due to the bias of the assessing officer.
Issues: 1. Whether the assessment orders passed by Sri V. D. Singh were vitiated by bias. 2. Whether the petitioner had an alternative remedy of going up in appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the assessment orders were vitiated by bias because: a) There was an incident between the petitioner and Sri V. D. Singh during a survey conducted by Sri V. D. Singh at the petitioner's business premises, which led to the petitioner's criminal prosecution. b) Sri V. D. Singh had put wrong dates on the petitioner's account books and had not made any attempt to rectify the same. c) Sri V. D. Singh had threatened the petitioner with prosecution under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. d) The petitioner had made several attempts to get the cases transferred from the file of Sri V. D. Singh, but his requests were denied. 2. The court held that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of going up in appeal, but this was not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The court observed that where there is a patent denial of justice, the superior courts readily issue certiorari.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the assessment orders dated 18th of March, 1964 for assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 under the U. P. Sales Tax Act as also under the Central Sales Tax Act. The notices of demand consequential to these assessment orders were also set aside.
ORDER :- This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution prays that the assessment orders passed by Sri V. D. Singh, Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Aligarh, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 under the U. P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act be quashed. When the petition came up for hearing an objection as to the maintainability of a single petition inasmuch as it sought to challenge four assessment orders, was raised. Brother Manchanda considered the question to be one of importance. He referred it to a Division Bench. The Division Bench held that one writ petition for the quashing of two assessment orders pertaining to two assessment years or one petition for the quashing of the two assessment orders under two different taxing statutes, even though the assessee is the same and the assessing authority is the same cannot be entertained. When the case came back before the single Judge the petitioner filed three additional sets of court fees to regularise the defect. The petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of four assessment orders. The petitioner has now paid four sets of court fees. The position is as if there were four writ petitions seeking to set aside the four assessment orders.
2. The petitioner commenced the business of manufacture and sale of buckles at Aligarh in or about December 1960. This business continued till December 1962, when it is alleged to have been suspended. In or about August 1962, Sri V. D. Singh was one of the Assistant Sales Tax Officers at Aligarh. On 10th of August 1962 he came to the petitioner's business premises in order to make a survey for the purpose of assessment of Sales Tax. Some altercation took place between Mr. Singh and the petitioner and his father, Mr. Singh lodged a report with the police authorities with respect to this incident. He appears to have gone again with police force and conducted a survey of the petitioner's business. He inspected the petitioner's account books and signed them at various places. The inspection was done only on 10-8-1962, but Sri Singh dated some of his signatures as 10-7-1962 and others as 10-9-1962 and still others as 10-8-1962. According to the petitioner, this was done by Mr. Singh deliberately in order to discredit the petitioner's account books, but according to Sri V. D. Singh, the wrong dates were put by him in confusion. The report filed by Sri V. D. Singh with the police culminated in the prosecution of the petitioner under S. 353 I. P. C. Sri V. D. Singh appeared as a witness in the criminal court. In his statement he stated that when he reached the premises of the petitioner, the petitioner as well as his father pushed him out and threatened him that if he would not get away, he will be thoroughly thrashed and that the petitioner's father took out his shoe and ran after him in order to beat him. Thereupon Mr. Singh took police force and again went back to the petitioner's premises and conducted the survey. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court. He went up in appeal and was successful there. The appellate court acquitted him. An appeal against the order of acquittal has been filed in the High Court.
3. On 9-9-1962 Sri V. D. Singh served on the petitioner a notice directing him to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. Mr. Singh also served a notice under section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act on the petitioner for the assessment years 1960-61, 1961-62. On 10-9-1962 the petitioner approached the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U. P., Lucknow with an application praying that the aforesaid cases under the Sales Tax Act which have been initiated by Shri V. D. Singh be transferred to another Sales Tax Officer as Sri Singh was illdisposed towards the petitioner. While his application for transfer was pending, Sri V. D. Singh passed the assessment orders on 29-11-1962. The jurisdictional limit of Sri V. D. Singh was Rs. 40,000/-. He could not assess a dealer at a figure higher than
