Sales tax jurisdiction depends on the dealer's place of business, not purchase-point taxability or sale-point taxability.

Sales tax assessment jurisdiction was held to depend on the dealer's statutorily defined place of business, not on whether the commodity was taxable at the purchase point or the sale point. Because the assessee kept accounts at Bhubaneswar, that location constituted the place of business for assessment purposes, and the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Bhubaneswar, had jurisdiction. The Tribunal's contrary approach, which linked jurisdiction to the place of purchase, was rejected as inconsistent with the Act and rules. The assessment was therefore not liable to be set aside for de novo assessment by another officer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Bhubaneswar, had jurisdiction to assess the assessee; and (ii) whether the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal was right in setting aside the assessment and directing de novo assessment by another assessing officer.

Issue (i): Whether the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Bhubaneswar, had jurisdiction to assess the assessee.

Analysis: The jurisdictional question was not governed by whether the goods were taxable at the purchase point or the sale point. Under the Act and the rules, the relevant consideration was the dealer's place of business. The definition of "Assistant Sales Tax Officer" linked jurisdiction to the place of business situated within the officer's circle, and "place of business" included the place where the dealer sold or purchased goods or kept accounts of sales or purchases. Since the assessee's accounts were kept at Bhubaneswar, that was his place of business for assessment purposes.

Conclusion: The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Bhubaneswar, had jurisdiction to assess the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Additional Sales Tax Tribunal was right in setting aside the assessment and directing de novo assessment by another assessing officer.

Analysis: The Tribunal proceeded on an erroneous premise that taxability at the purchase point necessarily located jurisdiction in the officer where the purchases were made. That approach ignored the statutory scheme, under which the same authorities assess both purchase turnover and sale turnover commodity-wise, and jurisdiction depends on the dealer's place of business as defined in the rules.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not right in allowing the appeal and setting aside the assessment with a direction for de novo assessment by another officer.

Final Conclusion: The references were answered in favour of the Revenue, and the assessee's jurisdictional challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For sales tax assessment under the Act, jurisdiction is determined by the dealer's statutorily defined place of business, not by whether the commodity is taxable at the purchase point or the sale point.

---