TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (5) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....him, to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax for approval. Before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax could approve or disapprove the draft, Sri T.S. Bharti was transferred from Muzaffarnagar. Eventually when no approval was received the matter was taken up by Sri R.N. Pradhan, the Sales Tax Officer, who succeeded Sri T.S. Bharti. Sri Pradhan took the view that the draft prepared by Sri Bharti was not a completed assessment order. Accordingly, he proceeded to make a fresh assessment against the dealer. Sri Pradhan completed the assessment by his order dated 16th March, 1964. Being aggrieved by the order passed by Sri Pradhan, the dealer filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). It was contended on his behalf that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Act read with rule 41(5) of the Rules framed thereunder, though the same did not bear his signature? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment order dated 16th March, 1964, passed under section 7 read with rule 41(5) by Sri R.N. Pradhan, the successor of Sri Bharti was a legal and valid order in view of the fact that an order under the said section and rule had already been passed by Sri T.S. Bharti on 14th March, 1961?" In this case it is admitted by both the parties that the assessment order dated 14th March, 1961, prepared by Sri T.S. Bharti, had not been signed by him. Before signing the order Sri Bharti wanted to have the order, which involved certain refund, approved by the Assistant Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the question whether the assessment order prepared by the Income-tax Officer was or was not the final expression of opinion by him. As stated earlier, in this reference we are not at all concerned with the legality or propriety of the procedure adopted by the Sales Tax Officer in submitting his draft for the approval of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The circumstances appearing in this case make it abundantly clear that the opinion that had been expressed by Sri Bharti in the draft submitted by him was his provisional opinion, which was to be crystallised only after receiving some communication from the Assistant Commissioner. The observations made in the Punjab case, therefore, do not support the argument advanced on behalf of th....