Court affirms jurisdiction of Tax Officer in sales tax assessment, quashes parallel proceedings to prevent conflicts.

The Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Faridabad, for sales tax assessment proceedings. It found that both the District Assessing Authority and the designated officer had jurisdiction within the district, emphasizing the need to avoid parallel proceedings to prevent conflicts. The Court quashed the assessment notices issued by the designated officer and affirmed the authority of the Faridabad Assessing Authority to continue assessment proceedings until any transfer under Rule 7 occurs.

---

---

Issues involved:
Jurisdiction of Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority for sales tax assessment.

Comprehensive Details:

1. The petitioners were engaged in job-work of grey cloth and sales of processed cloth. Sales tax liability arose from April 1, 1987, due to constitutional amendments and amendments in the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, upheld by the Supreme Court.

2. The Excise and Taxation Officer, Faridabad, initiated sales tax assessment from April 1, 1987. Later, Shri M.S. Hooda, designated as Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority (AES) for Haryana, issued notices for assessment, which were challenged by the petitioners.

3. The Act specifies jurisdiction for assessment by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority of the district. The State Government can appoint an Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti Evasion Squad) to assist in assessment duties throughout the state, as done by appointing Shri M.S. Hooda.

4. A similar notification under the Punjab Act was upheld by the Court previously, supporting the appointment of Shri M.S. Hooda as the Assessing Authority for Haryana.

5. The Court found no error in appointing Shri M.S. Hooda as the Assessing Authority (AES) for the entire State of Haryana, based on the reasoning from a prior decision.

6. The question arose whether Shri M.S. Hooda could initiate proceedings when assessment proceedings by the District Assessing Authority were already pending.

7. The Court held that both the District Assessing Authority and Shri M.S. Hooda had jurisdiction for assessment within Faridabad district. Once proceedings were initiated by one authority, the other should refrain from starting parallel proceedings to avoid conflict, with provision for transfer under Rule 7.

8. The Court quashed the notices issued by Shri M.S. Hooda, affirming the jurisdiction of the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Faridabad, to continue assessment proceedings until any transfer under Rule 7 is made. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

---