Finality of return basis election under sales tax rules bars a later switch to assessment-year filing.

The statutory scheme required a dealer to elect the basis of return at the first instance, and that choice was treated as final for assessment under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and rules. A dealer who had filed returns on the previous-year basis could not later insist on assessment on the assessment-year basis. The rule barring a second election was within the rule-making power, and an assessment made on the previous-year basis was not a jurisdictional nullity. The assessing authority had jurisdiction to decide whether the return was proper and complete, so certiorari or prohibition was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a dealer who had initially submitted returns on the basis of the previous year could later elect to have its assessment made on the basis of the assessment year under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the relevant rules. (ii) Whether the restrictions in the rule against changing the basis of return and the assessment made on the previous-year basis were ultra vires or without jurisdiction so as to justify writs of certiorari or prohibition.

Issue (i): Whether a dealer who had initially submitted returns on the basis of the previous year could later elect to have its assessment made on the basis of the assessment year under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the relevant rules.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required a dealer to choose the basis of return at the first instance. Section 7(1) contemplated a return ordinarily on the previous-year basis, with an alternative only where the prescribed rule permitted a return on the assessment-year basis. The relevant rule framed under the rule-making power required the election to be signified in the return itself, and the scheme treated that election as final for the purpose of the basis of assessment. The dealer could not, therefore, claim a later and fresh election after having already adopted one basis.

Conclusion: The later election was not available, and the assessee could not insist on assessment on the assessment-year basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the restrictions in the rule against changing the basis of return and the assessment made on the previous-year basis were ultra vires or without jurisdiction so as to justify writs of certiorari or prohibition.

Analysis: The rule prohibiting a second exercise of the option was within the scope of the rule-making power conferred by the Act. Even assuming any part of the rule were invalid, the assessment order could not be treated as a jurisdictional nullity. Section 7(3) empowered the assessing authority to determine whether a proper return had been submitted and, if not, to make a best-judgment assessment on the previous-year turnover. The authority had jurisdiction to decide the preliminary question whether the return was correct or complete, and a mistaken decision on that question did not divest jurisdiction. Since the assessment was made within the statutory framework, extraordinary writ relief was not warranted.

Conclusion: The rule was not shown to be ultra vires, and the assessment was not jurisdiction; writs of certiorari and prohibition were therefore unavailable.

Final Conclusion: The application failed because the assessee could not establish a legal right to a second election of assessment basis, and the impugned assessment actions remained within the taxing authority's jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute authorises the assessing authority to determine whether the statutory return is proper and complete, a decision on that preliminary question is within jurisdiction, and a mistaken decision on it does not by itself justify certiorari or prohibition; a prescribed election of assessment basis may validly be treated as final when the statutory scheme so requires.

---