Back
1970 Supreme(All) 19
Brijlal Gupta, R.L.Gulati, Satish Chandra, JJ.
SHYAM MANOHAR DIXIT
Versus
SALES TAX OFFICER, SECTOR IV, KANPUR, AND OTHERS.
Writ Petitions Nos. 1876, 1877, 1878 and 1879 of 1963
Decided On: Decided On : 30-01-1970
P. N. Pachauri, for the petitioner.
The Standing Counsel, for the respondents.
Headnote:
SALES TAX - Assessing authority - Sales Tax Officer - Authorisation - Whether necessary - U.P. Sales Tax Act (15 of 1948), Ss. 2(a), 7, 24 - U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948, Rr. 2(c), (h), 3(1), (3), 6, 80.
Fact of the Case:
Four assessment orders under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, all dated 20th March, 1963, were challenged on the ground that the Sales Tax Officer who made the assessments was not authorised by the State Government to do so in accordance with section 2(a) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a Sales Tax Officer automatically acquires jurisdiction to make an assessment under the Act upon his appointment to a circle, and that no separate authorisation from the State Government is required.
Issues: Whether a Sales Tax Officer needs specific authorisation from the State Government to make an assessment under the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted section 2(a) of the Act and the relevant rules to conclude that the appointment of a Sales Tax Officer to a circle automatically vests him with the power to make assessments. The court also held that rule 80, which authorises certain superior officers to exercise the powers of a Sales Tax Officer, is a specific grant of authority to those officers, rather than a general requirement for all assessing authorities.
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.
The judgment of the court was delivered by
GULATI, J. - In this group of four writ petitions, four assessment orders under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, all dated 20th March, 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. Messrs Punjab Trading Company Ltd., Bhatinda [Sales Tax Reference No. 276 of 1957 decided on 11-4-1963]. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance was placed upon the decision of another Division Bench in State v. Duli Chand ([1968] 22 S.T.C. 191; A.I.R. 1967 All. 349) and the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in M/s. Agarwal Vastra Bhandar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow [Misc. Case No. 51 of 1962 decided on 17-8-1966]. 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 20th March, 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 clause (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 21st March, 1953, under which Sri Merh was appointed as Sales Tax Officer for the first time. This notification reads :-
"With effect from 25th February, 1953, Sri L. L. Merh, Assistant 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 5th July, 1961, published in the U.P. Gazette dated 15th July, 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. [Sales Tax Reference No. 276 of 1957 decided on 11-4-1963] 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 Officer shall be assessing authorities and they are authorised to make assessments under the Act". This rule was added on 26th September, 1964. It was prospective and could not be availed of to justify the impugned assessments which were made on 20th March, 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(a) empowers the State Government to make rul
