Transfer of pending sales tax assessments requires a lawful order; concurrent jurisdiction without transfer was held invalid.

The Punjab General Sales Tax Act and Rules ordinarily required assessment by the appropriate local Assessing Authority having territorial connection with the dealer's place of business. Although the Act did not expressly provide for transfer of pending assessment cases, the Court recognised an implied supervisory power in the Commissioner under rule 69 to transfer proceedings where more than one lawful Assessing Authority existed. That power had to be exercised on relevant considerations, including tax administration needs and the dealer's reasonable convenience, and not by arbitrary or concurrent assumption of jurisdiction. Notices issued by the Chandigarh authority were quashed because no proper transfer order had been made, while the authority's power to pass a lawful transfer order and proceed afresh was preserved.

---

---

Issues: Whether pending sales tax assessment proceedings, already instituted before the appropriate Assessing Authority at the dealer's place of business, could be taken up by another Assessing Authority at a different place without a formal transfer order, and whether notices issued in such circumstances were valid.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act and the Rules ordinarily contemplates assessment by the appropriate Assessing Authority having territorial connection with the dealer's place of business, while also permitting the State Government to appoint other persons under section 3 to assist in assessment work. The Act did not contain an express provision for transfer of pending assessment cases, but the Court held that, where more than one lawful appropriate Assessing Authority exists, the power to transfer pending proceedings is implicit in the supervisory authority of the Commissioner under rule 69. At the same time, two authorities could not concurrently proceed with the same assessment in an indiscriminate manner, because that would create confusion, prejudice the dealer, and operate unfairly. The discretion to transfer must therefore be exercised on relevant considerations of tax collection exigencies and the dealer's reasonable convenience, and not arbitrarily.

Conclusion: The notices issued by the Chandigarh authority were quashed because, in the absence of a proper transfer order, it was not lawful to proceed with the pending assessments already seized by the Amritsar authority. The Commissioner was left free to pass a proper transfer order in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, and the impugned notices were set aside, while preserving the authority's power to regularise the matter through a lawful transfer and proceed afresh.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute contemplates assessment by an appropriate local authority but does not expressly provide for transfer of pending cases, the supervisory authority may imply such power only to ensure efficient tax administration, and the transfer must be made by a lawful order founded on relevant considerations and not by concurrent or arbitrary assumption of jurisdiction.

---