- (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays that the assessment orders passed by Sri V. D. Singh, Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Aligarh, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act be quashed. When the petition came up for hearing an objection as to the maintainability of a single petition, inasmuch as it sought to challenge four assessment orders, was raised. Brother Manchanda considered the question to be one of importance. He referred it to a Division Bench. The Division Bench held that one writ petition for the quashing of two assessment orders pertaining to two assessment years or one petition for the quashing of two assessment orders under two different taxing statutes, even though the assessee is the same and the assessing authority is the same cannot be entertained. When the case came back before the single Judge the petitioner filed three additional sets of court fee to regularise the defect. The petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of four assessment orders. The petitioner has now paid four sets of court fees. The position is as if there were four writ petitions seeking to set aside the four assessment orders.
(2.) THE petitioner commenced the business of manufacture and sale of buckles at Aligarh in or about December, 1960. This business continued till December, 1962, when it is alleged to have been suspended. In or about August, 1962, Sri V. D. Singh was one of the Assistant Sales Tax Officers at Aligarh. On 10th of August, 1962, he came to the petitioner's business premises in order to make a survey for the purpose of assessment of sales tax. Some altercation took place between Mr. Singh and the petitioner and his father. Mr. Singh lodged a report with the police authorities with respect to this incident. He appears to have gone again with police force and conducted a survey of the petitioner's business. He inspected the petitioner's account books and signed them at various places. The inspection was done only on 10th August, 1962, but Sri Singh dated some of his signatures as 10th July, 1962, and others as 10th September, 1962, and still others as 10th August, 1962, According to the petitioner, this was done by Mr. Singh deliberately in order to discredit the petitioner's account books, but according to Sri V. D. Singh, the wrong dates were put by him in confusion. The report filed by Sri V. D. Singh with the police culminated in the prosecution of the petitioner under section 353, Indian Penal Code. Sri V. D. Singh appeared as a witness in the criminal court. In his statement he stated that when he reached the premises of the petitioner, the petitioner as well as his father pushed him out and threatened him that if he would not get away, he would be thoroughly thrashed and that the petitioner's father took out his shoe and ran after him in order to beat him. Thereupon Mr. Singh took police force and again went back to the petitioner's premises and conducted the survey. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court. He went up in appeal and was successful there. The appellate court acquitted him. An appeal against the order of acquittal has been filed in the High Court. On 9th September, 1962, Sri V. D. Singh served on the petitioner a notice directing him to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. Mr. Singh also served a notice under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act on the petitioner for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. On 10th September, 1962, the petitioner approached the Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow, with an application praying that the aforesaid cases under the Sales Tax Act which have been initiated by Sri V. D. Singh be transferred to another Sales Tax Officer as Sri Singh was ill-disposed towards the petitioner. While this application for transfer was pending, Sri V. D. Singh passed the assessment orders on 29th November, 1962. The jurisdictional limit of Sri V. D. Singh was Rs. 40,000. He could not assess a dealer at a figure higher than this. The petitioner was assessed at a turnover of Rs. 40,000 for each of the years 1960-61 and 1961-62, both under the U.P. Sales Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act. On the same date the petitioner was also assessed for the first quarter of 1962-63 on a turnover of Rs. 10,000. All these assessments were best judgment assessments.
(3.) AGGRIEVED , the petitioner filed appeals against these assessment orders. The Assistant Commissioner (J.) Sales Tax, Aligarh Range, Aligarh, by his judgment dated 6th January, 1964, allowed all the four appeals, set aside the assessment orders and remanded the cases back for fresh assessments according to the directions given by him. He observed that the Assistant Sales Tax Officer has not mentioned any material evidence or ground on which he came to the conclusion that the sales have taken place during 1960-61 and that for the year 1961-62 no proper basis for the determination of turnover has been mentioned and that the turnover determined appears to be arbitrary, and not connected with the relevant facts. He directed that fresh assessment should be made after making a proper and detailed enquiry into the nature and extent of the petitioner's business. Similarly the appeal against the assessment for the first quarter of 1962-63 was allowed and the matter remanded by an order which was passed in September, 1963. When this case came back to the file of the same officer, viz., Sri V. D. Singh, the petitioner made an application for its transfer. The Commissioner, Sales Tax, dismissed this application on 13th January, 1964, with the observation : "Let applicant apply to the A.C. (J.) who remanded the case if he wants a transfer from the file of the officer to whom A.C. (J.) remanded the case.";