B C SAMATHANMATH Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER I CIRCLE HUBLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a dealer in Hubli and with respect to the turnover of his business in respect of three different periods starting on 1st April, 1965 and ending on 30th September, 1967, three assessment orders were made by the concerned Commercial Tax Officer. The Commercial Tax Officer who made the assessment was one Ramasetty. But the petitioner had produced his returns before another Commercial Tax Officer, and Ramasetty was the Commercial Tax Officer who issued notices under section 14(3)(a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, which was then operating in the area with which we are concerned, calling upon the dealer to produce evidence in support of his returns. One of the members of the petitioner's family who was carrying on the business, to which the orders of assessment related, appeared before Ramasetty and produced evidence which Ramasetty called upon the dealer to produce and on the production of that evidence, he made the impugned orders of assessment. He purported to make them under section 14(4) of the Act.

(2.) From those orders of assessment, the petitioner appealed to the Assistant Collector, who dismissed them. There were second appeals to the Collector who dismissed those appeals on the ground that they were incompetent appeals. Then the petitioner presented revision petitions to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 31 of the Act and the Tribunal took the view that since the appeals to the Collector were incompetent appeals, the revision petitions were liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The orders of assessment so made by Ramasetty are called in question in these writ petitions on the ground that when he issued notices under section 14(3)(a) of the Act, he had not been appointed as a Commercial Tax Officer but was only appointed subsequently.