PATHAK, J. - (1.) THE assessee, which is a partnership firm, deals in foodgrains and oil-seeds. On January 30, 1957, it made an application under rule 20-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules for exemption from sales tax of the turnover of foodgrains for the assessment year 1956-57. On November 25, 1958, an order of exemption under rule 20-B was made by the Sales Tax Officers, and the exemption fee was determined at Rs. 3,000. Upon revision application by the assessee, the Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax accepted the plea that the quantum of turnover on which the fee should have been computed was much less, and he reduced the exemption fee to Rs. 1,500 by his order dated February 27, 1961.
(2.) MEANWHILE , the Sales Tax Officer took assessment proceedings under the U.P. Sales Tax Act in respect of other turnover, and on October 28, 1958, an assessment order was made for the assessment year 1956-57. The assessee had realised Re. 2,341 as sales tax on the sale of foodgrains made on behalf of U.P. principals, and in the view that it was not due as sales tax the assessment order included a direction that the amount should be deposited under section 8-A(4) of the Act. The assessee appealed. The only point in dispute before the Judge (Appeals) Sales Tax related to the calculation of tax in respect of various items. There was no dispute as to the quantum of the turnover. The Judge (Appeals) set aside the assessment order and remanded the case for fresh assessment. The appellate order may usefully be reproduced : "This is an appeal against an assessment order passed by Sri H. M. Farooqui, S.T.O., Jhansi, for the year 1956-57. The book version in this case has been accepted. The only point under dispute is that tax on various items has been wrongly calculated. The amount due according to the figures furnished is Rs. 2,842-12-0. It has further been mentioned in the assessment order that some sales tax was realised on foodgrains on behalf of U.P. principals and it appears that this was also added to tax assessed under section 8-A(4). There appears to be some dispute about the actual amount realised which needs further verification from the books of accounts. The assessment order is set aside and the case is remanded back for fresh assessment after rechecking the calculations and examining the tax actually collected and realised under section 8-A(4) form the U.P. principals." Upon remand the Sales Tax Officer commenced proceedings for reassessing the turnover of the assessee. He came into possession of information received from the Superintendent, Model Jail, Lucknow, that the assessee had supplied goods worth Rs. 3,27,935 to the Model Jail. The Sales Tax Officer noticed that during the original assessment a statement had been filed mentioning that sarson of the value of Rs. 2,90,975-6-6 and foodgrains worth Rs. 1,93,314-4-6 had been supplied to the Model Jail. The supplies were entered under the head "joint venture". The Sales Tax Officer called upon the assessee to explain and to produce the relevant account books. Neither being forthcoming, the Sales Tax Officer came to the conclusion that a certain amount of turnover had escaped assessment during the original assessment proceeding. On May 18, 1960, he made an assessment order, in which he added by estimate Rs. 3,40,000 as the escaped turnover of oil-seeds and Rs. 2,10,000 as the escaped turnover of foodgrains, and calculated the total taxable turnover of the assessee at Rs. 6,59,639-7-0 As a result of reassessment, he found that the assessee was liable to deposit a further sum of Rs. 2,341 under section 8-A(4), being the amount realised by it on the sale of foodgrains effected on behalf of U.P. principals. The assessee preferred an appeal The Judge (Appeals) held by his order dated October 6, 1962, that it was not open to the Sales Tax Officer to assess the escaped turnover in the reassessment proceeding as his jurisdiction was limited by the terms of the remand order, which did not envisage such assessment. He expressed the view that to assess the escaped turnover it was necessary for the Sales Tax Officer to have recourse to proceedings under section 21 of the Act. Accordingly, he deleted the addition of the escaped turnover. Aggrieved, the Commissioner of Sales Tax filed a revision application. The Additional Judge (Revisions) allowed the revision application, set aside the appellate and assessment orders and remanded the case to the Sales Tax Officer for reassessment. He held that the Sales Tax Officer was competent to assess the escaped turnover in the reassessment proceeding and it was not necessary for him to have recourse to section 21 of the Act, and observed that it was difficult to contemplate a proceeding under section 21 when a proceeding under section 7 for fresh assessment was already pending and in which it was open to the Sales Tax Officer to take into account all the taxable turnover of the assessee. But holding that the assessee was entitled to a further opportunity to meet the material against it, he remanded the case. This reference has now been made on the following question :- "Whether in the circumstances of the case stated above the Sales Tax Officer in reassessment proceedings was competent to examine the case afresh, de novo and to assess on enhanced turnover in the same order, or separate proceedings under section 21 were required to be taken ?"
(3.) WE think that the Additional Judge (Revisions) has erred. In the reassessment proceeding taken upon remand the Sales Tax Officer was bound by the terms of the remand order made by the Judge (Appeals). The jurisdiction exercised by the Sales Tax Officer was not the uninhibited jurisdiction contemplated in an original assessment proceeding. It was controlled by the directions contained in the remand order. Upon the making of the original assessment order, the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer comes to an end. To reopen the assessment he is compelled to have recourse either to section 21 for assessing escaped turnover or to section 22 for rectifying the original assessment order or to section 30 for setting aside an ex parte assessment order. Apart from these provisions, he has no jurisdiction to touch an assessment already completed. If the case does not fall within any of those provisions and for some reason he considers it necessary to reopen the assessment there is nothing he can do about it. The only other case where the assessment can be reopened is upon the direction of a superior authority in an order of remand made in a duly constituted proceeding before that authority. An order remanding the case to the Sales Tax Officer has the effect of reopening the proceeding, and in the re-opened proceeding the Sales Tax Officer is reinvested with jurisdiction. But the limits of that jurisdiction are controlled by the curbs, if any, imposed by the remand order. If the remand order merely orders a fresh assessment and contains no restrictions subject to which the fresh assessment is to be made, the Sales Tax Officer can exercise all the jurisdiction available to him as if it were an original assessment proceeding. But where the remand order indicates the specific area to which the fresh assessment is to be confined, the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer is limited accordingly. These are fundamental principles governing all proceedings taken on remand.;