Anti-evasion assessment jurisdiction is limited to evasion cases; exemption disputes must go before the regular assessing authority.

Anti-evasion assessment jurisdiction under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is confined to cases involving tax avoidance, evasion, concealment, or non-payment according to law. Where the dispute is only about interpretation of an exemption notification or a difference on the applicable rate between the Anti-evasion Wing and the regular assessing authority, the matter must be dealt with by the regular assessing authority. Orders passed by an Anti-evasion officer without such jurisdiction are void and liable to be set aside, with the assessment to be reconsidered on merits by the competent regular authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-evasion, had jurisdiction to finalise the assessment where the controversy concerned the availability of exemption and not a case of tax evasion or concealment, and whether the assessment orders passed by him were valid.

Analysis: Section 28 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 empowered the assessing authority to proceed where there was reason to believe that tax had been avoided, evaded, or not paid according to law. The definition of assessing authority and Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 showed that officers in the Anti-evasion Wing could exercise jurisdiction only within the limits fixed by the Commissioner. The notification relied on for anti-evasion jurisdiction covered cases of detected evasion or concealment of liability, but the present controversy was only about the correct interpretation of the exemption notification and a difference of view between the Anti-evasion officer and the regular assessing authority. That situation did not amount to a case of evasion or concealment. The earlier circular also indicated that where the Anti-evasion Wing merely disputed the rate of tax or exemption position, the matter had to go to the regular assessing authority for final disposal. Since the officer lacked authority to conclude the matter, the resulting orders were without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Anti-evasion officer had no jurisdiction to finalise the assessment, and the assessment orders were void and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back to the regular assessing authority for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law, and the assessee succeeded on the jurisdictional challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: An anti-evasion assessing authority can assume jurisdiction only in cases of tax avoidance, evasion, concealment, or non-payment according to law, and not where the dispute is confined to the interpretation of an exemption claim or rate difference requiring determination by the regular assessing authority.

---