Transfer of tax proceedings within the same locality may proceed without prior hearing; jurisdictional objection can be waived.

A transfer of proceedings within the same city, locality or place under section 70 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act is explained as not requiring a prior hearing to the assessee, because the proviso is treated as dispensing with notice in that situation and the hearing requirement is directory rather than mandatory. The note also states that where the assessee participates throughout without timely objection, the challenge to territorial jurisdiction may be barred by waiver, acquiescence and estoppel, and the assessment is not void on that ground. It further records that although an alternate statutory remedy existed, the writ objection on that basis was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on a transfer of proceedings under section 70 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act from one officer to another within the same city, locality or place, a prior hearing to the assessee was necessary and whether the transfer rendered the assessment void. (ii) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternate statutory remedy.

Issue (i): Whether, on a transfer of proceedings under section 70 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act from one officer to another within the same city, locality or place, a prior hearing to the assessee was necessary and whether the transfer rendered the assessment void.

Analysis: The expression "in the same city, locality or place" was read disjunctively, and the words "locality" and "place" were treated as having an ordinary meaning broader than a mere intra-city ward or area. The proviso to section 70 was therefore held to dispense with a hearing where the transfer was between offices situated in the same city, locality or place. The requirement of hearing was further treated as directory, not mandatory, having regard to the language "wherever it is possible to do so". The assessee had also participated throughout the proceedings without objection and raised the jurisdictional point only at a later stage, attracting waiver, acquiescence and estoppel. The objection concerned territorial jurisdiction and not an inherent lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The transfer was valid without a prior hearing, the assessment was not void on that ground, and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternate statutory remedy.

Analysis: Although an alternate remedy by way of reference was available, the matter involved a large number of pending cases and substantial revenue consequences, and the Court found that the question raised did not warrant non-interference on that ground.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on alternate remedy was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the second appeal was remitted to the Tribunal for disposal on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 70 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, a transfer of proceedings within the same city, locality or place does not require a prior hearing, and an objection to territorial jurisdiction may be waived where the party has participated in the proceedings without timely protest.

---