V. K. SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THE Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer has filed this revision petition under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, against the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal dated March 6, 1990, in respect of the assessment year 1974-75 by raising the following question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal : " Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle 'a' had no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order in respect of the dealer whose turnover is less than Rs. 7 lakhs ?"
(2.) THE assessment in this case was framed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, A Circle, Jaipur, and the gross turnover was determined at Rs. 6,50,961 under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. An appeal was filed against the assessment order dated October 31, 1977, in which the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) found that the file was always with the Commercial Taxes Officer and the assessee was assessed previously by the Commercial Taxes Officer and a notice for the year 1974-75 was issued by the Commercial Taxes Officer fixing the date as May 14, 1976. THE Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer in charge of Ward No. II was not having the pecuniary jurisdiction at that time when the said notice was issued and it was only on June 24, 1977 that the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer was vested with the pecuniary jurisdiction for assessing the cases up to the turnover of Rs. 7 lakhs. It was found that the notification issued on June 24, 1977, has not divested the jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer who has once issued the notice. THE contention of the assessee was rejected. In revision before the Board of Revenue following the decision of the apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sarjoo Prasad Ram Kumar [1976] 37 STC 533 the revision was accepted. THE second appeal was also dismissed. I have considered over the matter. The word "assessing authority" has been defined under section 2 (b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and the said expression in relation to a dealer means the Commercial Taxes Officer or the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer having jurisdiction for the time being. The words "for the time being" were added by Act No. 9 of 1976 with effect from January 2, 1976. Rule 3 (1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955, provides that the Commercial Taxes Officer for the area within his jurisdiction as fixed by the Commissioner shall be the assessing authority for that area and such area shall be called his circle. Under rule 2 (d) "commercial Taxes Officer" has been defined and it means a Commercial Taxes Officer appointed by the Government and includes an Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer. Rule 4 provides that where there are more than one Commercial Taxes Officer in a circle their respective jurisdiction and the distribution of business amongst them shall be such as may be fixed by the Commissioner. Under the scheme of the Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder it is clear that there can be an assessing authority in respect of a dealer and if there are more than one Commercial Taxes Officer having the jurisdiction over the dealer, then the Commissioner has to fix their respective jurisdiction and distribute the business among them. In the light of rule 4, it has therefore to be seen as to whether the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer was having the jurisdiction or the Commercial Taxes Officer was having the jurisdiction. It is an admitted position that in the present case returns were submitted to the Commercial Taxes Officer and he was the assessing authority in respect of the previous years and the file was with him. Even the notice for assessment for the assessment year 1974-75 was issued on May 14, 1976, by him. At that time the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer was not having the pecuniary jurisdiction and therefore there was no conflict in the jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer and the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer. The Commercial Taxes Officer alone could have exercised the powers of the assessing authority. The subsequent notification dated June 24, 1977, becomes relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present dispute as to whether it has divested the powers of the Commercial Taxes Officer from making assessment since the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer was vested with the jurisdiction to assess the cases up to the pecuniary limit of Rs. 7 lakhs. The notification dated June 24, 1977, cannot be interpreted to divest the jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer which he had already exercised by issuing the notice for assessment. The matter of assumption of jurisdiction is only based on furnishing the returns and thereafter by issuing notice and it is only by virtue of any specific notification for special category or particular type of dealers that the jurisdiction could be conferred on any assessing authority other than the authority before whom the return was submitted or who had issued the notice. It would be evident that under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act the jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Commercial Taxes Officer of Special Circle if the turnover of a particular dealer exceeds the limit prescribed in the said notification in the assessment year mentioned therein. In the case of evasion of tax also a separate notification is issued and when there is detection of case of evasion of tax then the anti-evasion authorities will have the jurisdiction. There is no notification in respect of the powers of the Commercial Taxes Officer which precludes him from making the assessment in respect of the turnover which is within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer. In the decision of the apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sarjoo Prasad Ram Kumar [1976] 37 STC 533, the apex Court has interpreted the U. P. Sales Tax Act and the Rules made thereunder. The jurisdiction of different Assistant Sales Tax Officers was considered and it was held that all the Assistant Sales Tax Officers in Lucknow cannot have the jurisdiction to assess all the dealers in Lucknow Circle. The Commissioner has to allocate the separate area for separate Assistant Sales Tax Officer. When such an allocation was made, the jurisdiction of each officer was confined to the area allotted to him. In these circumstances, it was held that the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Sector II, had no jurisdiction to assess the dealers in Sector III. The judgment of the apex Court in the aforesaid case of Sarjoo Prasad Ram Kumar [1976] 37 STC 533 has no relevance to the facts of the present case. In the present case the notification dated June 24, 1977, which has conferred the powers on the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer to assess the cases up to the limit of Rs. 7 lakhs cannot be interpreted to divest the jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer who was already issued the notice for assessment and assumed the jurisdiction of the assessing authority, more particularly, looking to the fact that at that time the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer had no pecuniary jurisdiction and the Commercial Taxes Officer had assessed the assessee for previous years and the assessment framed by him cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and is set aside. Since the arguments of the assessee were not heard on merits the matter is sent back to the Sales Tax Tribunal for deciding the case on merits. It may also be observed that in the case of Mansa Ram v. J. S. Rajyana, Excise and Taxation Officer [1966] 18 STC 57 it has been held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that once a Sales Tax Officer issues a notice and returns are filed before him in pursuance of the said notice and he is then seized of the matter, no other sales tax authority even if he has inherent jurisdiction, can proceed with the assessment on the basis of those returns without first obtaining a formal order of transfer of the case from the Commissioner. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated March 6, 1990, is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Petition allowed. .;