- (1.)THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner challenging an assessment made by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer and affirmed in revision by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ujjain Range, Ujjain.
(2.)THE facts necessary for decision of this petition are that for the period 1st July, 1978, to 30th June, 1979, returns were filed by the petitioner and assessment was completed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer. There is some dispute raised about the proper opportunity also but ultimately in this petition the main contention urged is about the jurisdiction of the Assistant Sales Tax Officer and, therefore, those matters are not relevant. Against the order passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer dated 28th August, 1981, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Ujjain Range, on 23rd October, 1981. This revision was filed under Section 39 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act. It was contended before the Deputy Commissioner that earlier assessments were done by the Sales Tax Officer and, therefore, the Assistant Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to assess the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 12th November, 1982, rejected the revision petition and maintained the order passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer and it is against this that the present petition is filed.
(3.)IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 3 of the Act there are number of taxing authorities indicated in the section and under Section 30 powers have been conferred on the Commissioner of Sales Tax to delegate the functions to any one of the officers appointed under Section 3. It is contended that under Rule 68 of the M. P. General Sales Tax Rules it is provided that the Commissioner could only delegate powers as have been enumerated in this section and the relevant clause is Rule 68 (7) (c) and it was contended that under this provision it has been provided that the power will be delegated to Assistant Sales Tax Officer in cases in which the gross turnover of the year preceding the period of assessment does not exceed rupees six lakhs. It is, therefore, contended that up to this limit under this Rule 68 (7) (c) the Commissioner is authorised to delegate the powers to the Assistant Sales Tax Officer but in fact by orders of the Commissioner which have been filed and which are not disputed, the power delegated to the Assistant Sales Tax Officer is only in respect of the dealer whose gross turnover of the year preceding the period of assessment does not exceed rupees four lakhs and it is contended that it is on this basis that the previous assessments were made by the Sales Tax Officer and not by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer. It was, therefore, contended that the Assistant Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to assess in the present case as the gross turnover of the preceding year was more than rupees four lakhs. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Ramnath Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1984] 17 VKN 173 (MP) and Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Sarjoo Prasad Ram Kumar [1977] 10 VKN 49 (SC ). Learned counsel also referred to the decisions in Bhagwan Devi Saraogi v. Income-tax Officer [1979] 118 ITR 906 (Cal) and Continental Commercial Corporation v. Income-tax Officer [1975] 100 ITR 170 (Mad.) to contend that the question of jurisdiction is a matter which goes to the root of the matter and, therefore, could be raised even at a later stage.