Jurisdictional defect in tax assessment: order passed by an unauthorised officer was set aside under the VAT rules.

Where the rules assign assessment of a dealer holding TIN to the assessing authority of the range, an assessment made by a different officer lacks jurisdiction. Rule 34(12)(b) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 confined the assessment to the designated range authority, but the impugned order was passed by a Sales Tax Officer who was not that authority. The assessment was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with the matter directed to proceed before the competent range authority in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment order was without jurisdiction as it was passed by an authority other than the assessing authority of the range for a dealer holding TIN under the Orissa Value Added Tax Rules, 2005.

Analysis: Rule 34(12)(b) of the Orissa Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 confines assessment, in the case of a dealer assigned with TIN, to the assessing authority of the range. The impugned assessment was passed by the Sales Tax Officer, who was not the assessing authority of the range. Since the order was not made by the authority designated under the Rules, it could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The assessment order was jurisdiction and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the matter was directed to proceed before the competent range authority in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute and rules designate a specific assessing authority for a class of registered dealers, an assessment made by a different authority is void for want of jurisdiction.

---