TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1960 (7) TMI 58
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... circumstances of the case." 2.. The facts found are as follows: The opposite party was a building contractor in Balasore Circle for the quarters ending 30th June, 1949, 30th September, 1949, 31st December, 1949, and 31st March, 1950. He failed to get himself registered as a dealer in the said circle for the said quarters and thereupon the Sales Tax Officer, Balasore Circle, by his order dated 17th January, 1952, assessed him to sales tax under section 12(5) of the Act and also imposed on him a penalty of Rs. 10 for his failure to get himself registered under the Act. The opposite party then appealed to the Assistant Collector of Sales Tax against the order imposing the penalty but did not challenge the assessment order under section 12(5)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessed to sales tax) were all pure works contracts. The learned Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, thought that he had jurisdiction to allow additional grounds to be taken at that stage, relying mainly on his powers under rule 61 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules. Then, following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, he set aside the order of assessment dated 17th January, 1952, and also the order imposing penalty. Thereupon the Sales Tax Department filed a petition asking the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, to state a case before the High Court, for decision as to whether at the second appellate stage, it was open to the opposite party to challenge the original order of assessment. Hence, this reference. 3.. The Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bed in rule 61 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules. But this additional evidence must be limited only to the questions that were then pending before the Tribunal. When the order of assessment had become final long before the constitution of the Tribunal on account of the conduct of the assessee in not challenging the same before the appellate authorities, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to allow either additional grounds to be taken or additional evidence to be led, as regards the liability of the assessee to be assessed to sales tax. He should have noticed that his appellate jurisdiction under section 23(3) of the Act is only against the appellate order of the Assistant Collector dated 11th May, 1952, and not against the original order of asses....