Prior approval for sales tax assessment need not be recited in the order if it was actually granted beforehand.

Prior approval by the Assistant Commissioner was a jurisdictional safeguard for assessment under section 12 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act and rule 90-A(4), but the assessment order was not invalid merely because it did not expressly record that approval, its date, or number. The operative requirement was that approval had in fact been granted before assessment, and the rule did not prescribe any formal mode of recording it. On the facts, the Assistant Commissioner had accepted the Sales Tax Officer's proposal to proceed, so the statutory condition was satisfied and the assessment was upheld against the dealer.

---

---

Issues: Whether assessment under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 was invalid for want of a definite finding in the assessment order regarding prior approval of the Assistant Commissioner under rule 90-A(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947.

Analysis: Rule 90-A(4) required prior approval of the Assistant Commissioner before the Sales Tax Officer could assess the dealer under section 12. The prior approval was a jurisdictional safeguard, but the rule did not require the assessment order to expressly record the approval or its date and number. On the facts, the Assistant Commissioner had accepted the Sales Tax Officer's proposal to proceed with assessment, and that approval satisfied the statutory condition. The absence of a specific recital in the assessment order did not vitiate the assessment.

Conclusion: The assessment was valid, and the question was answered in the negative, against the dealer.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires prior approval as a condition for assessment, the approval need not be expressly recited in the assessment order if it has in fact been granted and the statute does not prescribe a formal mode of recording it.

---