Territorial jurisdiction of tax officers and late challenge to jurisdictional defect can invalidate an assessment.

Where separate Sales Tax Officers are assigned distinct territorial jurisdictions under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and Rules, each officer is confined to dealers within the area allotted to him. An assessment made by an officer outside his assigned circle is without jurisdiction and therefore invalid. A challenge to such jurisdictional defect is not barred merely because it was not raised before the assessing authority, since a defect going to jurisdiction can be taken at a later stage unless the statute expressly prohibits it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, where more than one Sales Tax Officer exists in a circle, the assessing authority is confined to the jurisdiction allocated to him under the rules; (ii) whether an objection that the assessing authority lacked jurisdiction could be raised for the first time at a later stage.

Issue (i): Whether, where more than one Sales Tax Officer exists in a circle, the assessing authority is confined to the jurisdiction allocated to him under the rules.

Analysis: Section 2(a) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act defines the assessing authority, while Rule 2(h) of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules identifies the Sales Tax Officer and Assistant Sales Tax Officer as assessing authorities for the relevant circle. Rule 3(3) authorises the Commissioner to determine the respective jurisdictions where there is more than one Sales Tax Officer in a circle, and Rule 6(a) confines each officer to dealers within the limits of his jurisdiction. On that framework, once separate areas are allocated, an officer cannot assess dealers outside the area assigned to him.

Conclusion: The assessment made by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Sector II, on a dealer falling within Sector III was without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether an objection that the assessing authority lacked jurisdiction could be raised for the first time at a later stage.

Analysis: A defect going to jurisdiction affects the root of the matter. In the absence of any provision in the Act or the Rules barring such an objection, failure to object before the assessing authority does not preclude the assessee from challenging jurisdiction at a later stage.

Conclusion: The assessee was not barred from raising the jurisdictional objection subsequently.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was held invalid for want of jurisdiction, and the department's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory rules allocate separate territorial jurisdiction to different assessing officers, an assessment made beyond the officer's allotted area is void for want of jurisdiction, and such a jurisdictional defect can be raised at any stage unless expressly barred by statute.

---