Finality of sales tax assessment bars collateral challenge in recovery proceedings under the public demands recovery law.

Under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, the assessing authority's determination of liability, dealer status, and related preliminary facts was final subject only to the remedies provided in that Act. Recovery proceedings under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act could not be used to reopen the assessment or test its correctness, because the recovery forum was bound to proceed on the assessed demand and had no jurisdiction to go behind it. A collateral objection that the assessee was not a dealer, or that pre-assessment or demand notices were not served, could not be raised in certificate proceedings; such objections had to be pursued through the special statutory appeal and revision machinery.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in proceedings under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, the Certificate Authorities or the High Court could examine the legality or correctness of a sales tax assessment made under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. (ii) Whether the assessee could, in certificate proceedings, challenge the assessment on the grounds that he was not a dealer and that the statutory notices preceding assessment and demand had not been served.

Issue (i): Whether, in proceedings under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, the Certificate Authorities or the High Court could examine the legality or correctness of a sales tax assessment made under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947.

Analysis: The recovery proceeding was only a mode of enforcing a public demand already assessed under the sales tax law. The sales tax statute conferred on the Sales Tax Officer authority to decide the preliminary facts necessary for assessment and made his assessment and related orders final, subject only to the remedies provided within that Act. The bar contained in the sales tax law excluded questioning the assessment in any other proceeding, and the Certificate Officer, being deemed to be a court for that purpose, could not go behind the assessment. The later special enactment controlled the field, while the recovery Act itself saved powers conferred by other statutes and did not enlarge jurisdiction to re-open the tax assessment.

Conclusion: The Certificate Authorities and the High Court had no jurisdiction to examine the legality or correctness of the assessment in the certificate proceeding.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee could, in certificate proceedings, challenge the assessment on the grounds that he was not a dealer and that the statutory notices preceding assessment and demand had not been served.

Analysis: The question whether a person is a dealer and whether a transaction is a sale was expressly entrusted to the Sales Tax Officer under the sales tax law, and the statute made his determination final, subject to the appeal and revision machinery provided by that Act alone. The challenge based on alleged absence of notices did not avail the assessee because the objection was not properly raised on the pleadings and the evidence showed receipt of departmental notice calling for contract details. In any event, the statutory scheme did not permit the assessee to bypass the special remedies under the sales tax law and attack the assessment collaterally in certificate proceedings.

Conclusion: The assessee could not challenge the assessment on those grounds in the certificate proceeding.

Final Conclusion: The statutory remedies under the sales tax enactment were exclusive for disputing liability, and the recovery authorities were bound to act on the assessed demand without re-adjudicating the tax liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special fiscal statute entrusts the assessing authority with power to determine the necessary preliminary facts and makes its assessment final subject only to remedies under that statute, the assessment cannot be collaterally questioned in recovery proceedings under a general demand-recovery law.

---