GULATI J. - (1.) THIS and the connected writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they are of the same petitioner and raise identical questions. The petitioner in all these writ petitions is one Sri Deoki Nandan, who carries on business of sarrafa and pawning at Lakhna in the district Etawah under the name and style of Hulas Rai Raghunandan Lal.
(2.) ON 30th January, 1966, Sri M. L. Gupta, Sales Tax Officer, Etawah, made a raid at the business premises of the petitioner to search and seize the books of accounts and other documents connected with the business activities of the petitioner. There is considerable controversy as to what exactly happened at the time of the search and seizure. According to the petitioner, all books of accounts including those pertaining to the business of pawning were indiscriminately seized and carried away by the raiding party which included Sri M. L. Gupta, Sales Tax Officer, Etawah, Servasri K. C. Saxena and A. H. Rizvi, Assistant Sales Tax Officers and a peon. According to the Sales Tax Officer, certain books of accounts relating to the assessment years 1961-62 to 1965-66 were seized as they were found to contain some suspicious entries, but they were snatched away from the hands of the peon by some persons at the instigation of the petitioner. The incident was reported to the police and the matter is now sub judice in certain criminal proceedings. It is, however, not necessary to go into that part of the case for the purpose of deciding this and the connected writ petitions. The main controversy raised in these petitions relates to the initiation by the Sales Tax Officer of proceedings against the petitioner under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") relating to the assessment years 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964-65. Section 21 of the Act is meant to bring to tax the turnover of an assessment year which has escaped assessment either in whole or in part. All the notices under section 21 of the Act are dated 5th March, 1966. The present writ petition relates to assessment year 1961-62 and the notice under section 21 relating to that year is annexure 'I' to the writ petition. For all these years assessments under section 7 of the Act had already been made by Sri J. C. Sinha, Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Etawah. The reassessment notices under section 2) were, however, issued by the opposite party Sri W. L. Gupta, Sales Tax Officer, Etawah. The validity of these notices under section 21 has been assailed in this and the connected writ petitions. The first ground of attach is that the original assessments having been made by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, the proceedings for reassessment under section 21 in respect of the same years could not have been taken by Sri M. L. Gupta, who, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, had no jurisdiction to take the impugned proceedings.
(3.) IT appears that this bunch of writ petitions came up for hearing earlier before the Honorable Pathak, J., who considered that the question jurisdiction raised by the petitioner was of considerable importance and difficulty and he accordingly formulated and referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench : "Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the instant case, when the original assessment was made by Sri J. C. Sinha, Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Etawah, against the petitioner, it is open to Sri M. L. Gupta, Salts Tax Officer, Etawah, to initiate and take proceedings against the petitioner for the same assessment year under section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act ?" The reference so made by the Honourable Pathak, J., came up for decision before a Division Bench of this Court comprised of the Honourable the Chief Justice and the Honourable Pathak, J. The Bench answered the question as below : "It was open to Sri M. L. Gupta, Sales Tax Officer, Etawah, to initiate and take proceedings against the petitioner under section 21, U.P. Sales Tax Act, in spite of the fact that original assessment of the petitioner had been done by Sri J. C. Sinha, Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Etawah." In view of the answer returned by the Bench to the question referred by the learned Single Judge, the first contention of the learned counsel has got to be rejected.;