1965 (10) TMI 57 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court dismisses petition citing lack of jurisdiction, no legal infirmity, and no manifest injustice. Emphasizes need for balance.

The court dismissed the petition, finding no jurisdictional or legal infirmity and no manifest injustice to the petitioner. Emphasizing the need to ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Excise and Taxation Officer to assess the petitioner-firm.2. Validity of the transfer order and its implications on jurisdiction.3. Petitioner's right to a fair opportunity to produce account books.4. Availability of alternative remedies under the statutory framework.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Excise and Taxation Officer to assess the petitioner-firm:The petitioner-firm contested the jurisdiction of Shri N.L. Murgai, Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar, to issue notice and frame assessment for the year 1961-62. The respondent argued that he was fully competent to make the assessment as he was the appropriate Assessing Authority under the provisions of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. The court held that the inherent jurisdiction conferred by the statute on the Assessing Authority could not be lost merely because the assessment proceedings were directed to be finalized by another officer with similar inherent jurisdiction. The court cited its earlier decision in C.W. No. 382 of 1964, which indicated that an irregular manner of seizing of an assessment proceeding does not necessarily vitiate the final assessment order.2. Validity of the transfer order and its implications on jurisdiction:The petitioner-firm argued that once the assessment proceedings were formally transferred to Shri D.P. Gupta, no other officer could proceed with the assessment without a formal order of transfer by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner. The respondent contended that the transfer order did not divest the jurisdiction of other competent officers in the district. The court agreed with the respondent, stating that the transfer order did not imply that Shri D.P. Gupta alone had jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the statutory scheme allowed for assessment proceedings to be held at a place other than the dealer's place of business if necessary.3. Petitioner's right to a fair opportunity to produce account books:The petitioner-firm claimed that it was not given a fair opportunity to produce its account books after its application questioning the respondent's jurisdiction was rejected. The court noted that the petitioner was taken into confidence and the interim order was passed on a best judgment basis because the petitioner failed to produce the account books. The court held that if there was any infirmity in the order of assessment due to an improper refusal to grant a reasonable opportunity, the statutory machinery provided ample provision for redress through appeal or revision. Resort to writ proceedings was deemed misconceived at this stage, especially as it appeared to obstruct and delay the assessment.4. Availability of alternative remedies under the statutory framework:The respondent argued that the petitioner-firm had alternative remedies available under sections 20 and 21 of the Act, which allowed for appeal or revision before seeking redress through writ proceedings. The court agreed, emphasizing that the petitioner should utilize the statutory remedies provided before approaching the court on writ side. The court found no jurisdictional infirmity or manifest injustice that would justify interference through a writ petition.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no jurisdictional or other grave legal infirmity disclosed on the record, nor any manifest injustice done to the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of balancing the interests of both the assessee and the revenue, and noted that the petitioner's actions appeared calculated to delay the assessment. The petition was dismissed with costs.Petition dismissed.