Court dismisses appeals, upholds writ petitions on jurisdiction grounds under Article 226.

The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the judgment of the learned single judge, who allowed the writ petitions on the grounds that the Sales Tax Officer, Delhi, had no jurisdiction to assess the respondents without a firm finding regarding the place of appropriation of goods. The court found no cogent reasons to differ from the judgment of the learned single judge and concluded that the petitions were maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, given the special circumstances of the case. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Competence and jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Delhi, to levy and collect sales tax.
2. Appropriation of goods and the determination of the place of sale.
3. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution despite the existence of alternate remedies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence and Jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Delhi:
The respondents questioned the competence and jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Delhi, to levy and collect sales tax on sales made by them, alleging that their sales were governed by Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act and that the tax was accordingly payable in Uttar Pradesh. The respondents had already been assessed and had paid the tax to the Sales Tax Officer, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. Despite this, the Sales Tax Officer, Delhi, made an assessment order levying sales tax on the same transactions, arguing that the place of sale was Delhi.

2. Appropriation of Goods and Determination of the Place of Sale:
The respondents contended that the goods were unconditionally appropriated to the contracts at their factory in Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh, and then dispatched to customers in Delhi. The railway receipts were taken in the name of the respondents as consignor and "self" as consignee, and the receipts were sent to the Delhi office, which prepared bills, collected payments, and endorsed the receipts to customers. The learned single judge observed that under Section 4(2)(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the place of sale is dependent upon the location of the goods at the time of their appropriation to the contract of sale. The judge noted that the Sales Tax Officer, Delhi, did not provide a clear finding on whether the goods were appropriated to the contract in Uttar Pradesh or Delhi. Without such a finding, the Sales Tax Officer could not assume jurisdiction to levy or collect the sales tax.

3. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution Despite the Existence of Alternate Remedies:
The appellants argued that the respondents should have availed themselves of the remedies by way of appeal or revision as provided under the Sales Tax Act, and that the remedy by way of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution was not open to the respondents. However, the court held that the Sales Tax Officer, Delhi, assumed jurisdiction to assess the respondents without giving a finding as to the place where the sale was effected, which is an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, an application under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable. The court also noted that the respondents had already been assessed and had deposited the tax in Uttar Pradesh, and it would be unjust to burden them with the levy a second time.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the judgment of the learned single judge, who allowed the writ petitions on the grounds that the Sales Tax Officer, Delhi, had no jurisdiction to assess the respondents without a firm finding regarding the place of appropriation of goods. The court found no cogent reasons to differ from the judgment of the learned single judge and concluded that the petitions were maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, given the special circumstances of the case. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

---