Jurisdictional defect in tax assessment does not defeat levy where statute adopts another assessment machinery mutatis mutandis.

Where an entry tax statute applies the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act machinery mutatis mutandis, assessment, reassessment, collection, enforcement, penalty and interest may proceed under that framework. Liability of a non-dealer importer is to be enforced through the Commercial Taxes Officer having the relevant territorial link, but an initial assessment made by the Anti-Evasion Wing does not defeat the levy merely for want of jurisdiction. If a jurisdictional defect exists, the appropriate course is to place the matter before the competent officer for assessment rather than nullify the tax demand altogether.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment order passed by the Anti-Evasion Officer was liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction, and whether the matter ought to have been remanded to the competent Commercial Taxes Officer for assessment under the entry tax .

Analysis: The Act of 1988 makes the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 applicable mutatis mutandis to assessment, reassessment, collection, enforcement, penalty and interest. Section 3(2)(b) fastens liability on an importer who is not a dealer to pay tax to the Commercial Taxes Officer of the area where the person ordinarily resides or carries on business or provides service. Section 7 further clothes the authorities empowered under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act with power to assess and enforce payment under the Act of 1988. Rule 4 also contemplates obtaining and furnishing Form ET-1 for personal import of a vehicle. On this framework, the levy could not be denied merely because the assessment was initially made by the Anti-Evasion Wing. The proper course, where jurisdictional defect was found, was to place the matter before the competent officer and not to nullify the assessment altogether.

Conclusion: The challenge to the remand order failed, the quashing of the assessment by the Tax Board was set aside, and assessment by the competent Commercial Taxes Officer was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute expressly applies the assessment machinery of another statute mutatis mutandis, liability cannot be defeated merely because the assessment was made by an officer lacking territorial or functional jurisdiction; the proper remedy is assessment by the competent authority.

---