2001 (4) TMI 879 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court Upholds Tax Assessment Jurisdiction and Delegation of Powers

Rubbani Trading Co. Versus Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I East Circle and others

Rubbani Trading Co. Versus Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I East Circle and others - [2001] 123 STC 609 (Ori) Issues:- Jurisdiction of the authorities to issue assessment notices under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act.- Legality of the delegation of powers by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa.- Challenge to the notification under annexures 1 and 7.- Petitioner's request for adjournment of assessment proceedings.- Appeal process under Rule 47 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules.- Misconceived writ petition seeking to delay tax payment.Jurisdiction of Authorities:The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act, challenged a notice issued under rule 12(5) of the Central Sales Tax (Orissa) Rules for failure to file returns. The challenge was based on the jurisdiction of the authorities to issue such notices. The petitioner contended that the delegation of powers to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack-I East Circle, was not authorized under the Act or Rules. However, the court noted that the Government had empowered the Assistant Commissioner to make assessments under section 3(3) of the Act, and the petitioner was aware of this delegation. The court found the challenge to the notice on jurisdictional grounds to be unfounded.Delegation of Powers:The petitioner objected to the delegation of assessment powers to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack-I East Circle, as it was not explicitly authorized under the relevant laws. The court observed that the Government had issued a notification conferring assessment powers on the Assistant Commissioner, as permitted under section 3(3) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The court found that the delegation of powers was legally valid and in accordance with the provisions of the Act.Challenge to Notification:The petitioner sought to challenge the notification under annexures 1 and 7, contending that similar notices had been challenged in previous writ petitions. The court noted that the petitioner was aware of the delegation of powers to the Assistant Commissioner for assessments. The court found no illegality in the issuance of the notices and dismissed the challenge to the notification.Adjournment of Assessment Proceedings:The petitioner requested adjournments for assessment proceedings on multiple occasions, leading to delays in the process. Despite being aware of the legal procedures and jurisdiction of the authorities, the petitioner filed applications for adjournments, potentially to postpone tax payments. The court observed that the petitioner's actions seemed aimed at delaying proceedings and avoiding tax payments for an extended period.Appeal Process under Rule 47:The court referred to Rule 47 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, which outlined the appeal process for orders of assessment. The rule specified the authorities to whom appeals could be made based on the level of the assessing officer. The court highlighted the appeal mechanism under the rules to address any grievances regarding assessment orders.Misconceived Writ Petition:The court concluded that the present writ petition lacked merit and was misconceived. The petitioner's attempt to delay tax payments through legal challenges and adjournment requests was deemed inappropriate. The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the legality of the assessment notices and the delegation of powers to the Assistant Commissioner for assessments.In summary, the High Court upheld the jurisdiction of the authorities to issue assessment notices, validated the delegation of powers to the Assistant Commissioner, dismissed challenges to the notification, criticized the petitioner's adjournment requests, explained the appeal process under Rule 47, and rejected the misconceived writ petition seeking to delay tax payments.