Assessing Authority jurisdiction and parallel proceedings barred once one officer first seizes assessment under the transfer rule

The Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 permitted appointment of an Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti Evasion Squad) to exercise the powers of an Assessing Authority throughout the State, and the notification making that appointment was valid. However, where assessment proceedings had already been initiated by the district Assessing Authority, the Anti Evasion Squad officer could not start or continue parallel proceedings without a lawful transfer under rule 7. The authority first seised of the matter retained jurisdiction until transfer, so notices issued by the Anti Evasion Squad officer were without jurisdiction and were quashed, while the district Assessing Authority could continue the assessment unless the case was transferred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government could validly appoint an Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti Evasion Squad) to exercise the powers of an Assessing Authority throughout the State of Haryana; (ii) whether, where assessment proceedings had already been initiated by the district Assessing Authority, the Anti Evasion Squad officer could commence parallel proceedings in the absence of an order of transfer under the relevant rule.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government could validly appoint an Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti Evasion Squad) to exercise the powers of an Assessing Authority throughout the State of Haryana.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 2(a) and section 3 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 permitted appointment of an officer to perform the duties of an Assessing Authority across the State. The notification appointing the officer was treated as valid, and the Court found no error in such appointment.

Conclusion: The appointment of the Excise and Taxation Officer (Anti Evasion Squad) as an Assessing Authority throughout Haryana was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether, where assessment proceedings had already been initiated by the district Assessing Authority, the Anti Evasion Squad officer could commence parallel proceedings in the absence of an order of transfer under the relevant rule.

Analysis: The Court held that both the district Assessing Authority and the specially appointed officer could have jurisdiction, but once one authority had already initiated proceedings, the other could not start or continue parallel proceedings. In case of overlap, the proper course was transfer of the case under rule 7, and until such transfer the authority which first assumed seisin would continue to have jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The notices issued by the Anti Evasion Squad officer were without jurisdiction and were quashed; the district Assessing Authority could continue the assessment proceedings unless they were transferred under rule 7.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the impugned notices were set aside, while the pending assessment proceedings remained with the district Assessing Authority unless duly transferred in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two authorities have co-extensive jurisdiction, the authority that first initiates assessment proceedings retains control of the matter until a lawful transfer is made, and the other authority cannot commence parallel proceedings.

---