Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) These three revisions under Section 11 of U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act") are directed against the order of Tribunal dated 07 ()2 1998 all relating to the assessment year 1995-96.
(2.) Dealer/opposite patty (hereinafter referred to as "Dealer") was carrying on the business of food grain and oil seed. Dealer has started its business w.e.f. 15.03.1993 at Konch and applied for registration both under the U.P. Trade Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. The registration was issued for carrying on the business at Konch, Subsequently, on 04.02.1995 dealer had opened a branch at Etah, district Jalaun with the principal place of business at Konch. Necessary information was given to the officer concerned in this regard. Thereafter, dealer moved an application on 28.02,1995 before Trade Tax Officer, Mahoba by which declared his principal place of business at Mahoba instead of Konch, the copies of said letters had been submitted to the higher authorities. In this way according to the applicant w.e.f. 28.02.1995 there were three places of business with the principal place of business at Mahoba.
(3.) Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax, Orai passed an order on 06.11.1995 under Section 8C(2) of the Act, by which he had demanded the additional security of Rs. 20 lacs. It appears that the dealer has challenged the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax, Orai on the ground that he had declared the principal place of business at Mahoba in place of Konch and, therefore, Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax, Oral had no jurisdiction to pass any order Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax, Orai vide its order dated rejected the claim of the dealer. It appears that the dealer had not furnished the additional security demanded vide order dated 06.11.1995 under Section 8C(2) of the Act and, therefore, Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax, Orai vide order dated 05.06.1996 passed an order under Section 8C(7)(b) of the Act and cancelled the registration under the U.P. Trade Tax Act. Against all the three orders passed by Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Trade Tax, Oral, dealer filed three appeals before Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jhansi. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Jhansi vide order dated 0207.1997 rejected all the three appeals. Dealer filed second appeals before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order dated 07.02.1998 allowed all the three appeals. Tribunal held that Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax, Orai had no jurisdiction to pass the order under Section 8C (2) and 8C(7)(b) of the Act inasmuch as he had no jurisdiction after 28.02.1995, the day on which dealer had disclosed its head office/principal place of business at Mahoba in place of Konch.;