2006 (4) TMI 476 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central Section.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central Section, to determine the "gross value of fixed assets."

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Validity of the Notice:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, challenged the notice dated December 9, 2005, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central Section. The petitioner argued that the Assistant Commissioner lacked the authority or jurisdiction to issue such a notice for determining the "gross value of fixed assets" as he was not the "appropriate assessing authority" under Rule 101A of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995.

2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner:
The petitioner contended that only the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax/Commercial Tax Officer, Shibpur Charge, was the "appropriate assessing authority" for determining the "gross value of fixed assets" of the petitioner's factory. The petitioner relied on Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1995, which defines "appropriate assessing authority," and various provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1994, including the restrictions and conditions for delegation of power by the Commissioner.

Analysis and Judgment:

Definition and Jurisdiction:
The Tribunal examined the definition of "appropriate assessing authority" under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1995, which includes the Assistant Commissioner or the Commercial Tax Officer within whose jurisdiction the dealer's place of business is situated. The Tribunal noted that there are two sets of empowered assessing officers for each charge: one set attached to the particular charge and another set belonging to the Central Section, which has jurisdiction over the entire State of West Bengal.

State Government Notifications:
The Tribunal referred to two notifications issued by the State Government on April 20, 1995. Notification No. 1115-F.T. specified the areas of different charges and the territorial jurisdiction of the assisting officers. Notification No. 1119-F.T. conferred jurisdiction on the officers of the Central Section over the whole of West Bengal, allowing them to exercise jurisdiction in relation to any dealer having a place of business within any charge.

Commissioner's Powers:
The Tribunal discussed the various sub-sections of Section 3 of the Act of 1994, which empower the State Government to appoint officers to assist the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and specify their territorial jurisdiction. The Commissioner also has the power to transfer cases or delegate his powers to any assisting officer. However, the Tribunal clarified that the power and jurisdiction conferred by the State Government under sub-section (1) of Section 3 are distinct from the Commissioner's power of transfer or delegation.

Rule 205 and Authorisation:
The Tribunal addressed the petitioner's reference to Rule 205 of the Rules of 1995, which prescribes the manner of imposing penalties for non-issue of cash memos or bills. The Tribunal noted that an Explanation was added to Rule 205, allowing the Commissioner to authorise specific officers to act as the "appropriate assessing authority." The Tribunal emphasized that Rules cannot override statutory provisions and that the Commissioner's authorisation was necessary to resolve any conflict between Rule 205 and Section 64 of the Act.

Rule 101A and Determination of Gross Value:
The Tribunal found no conflict between Section 39(4) of the Act and Rule 101A, which prescribes the manner of determining the "gross value of fixed assets" and authorizes the "appropriate assessing authority" to do so. The Tribunal concluded that the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Central Section, qualifies as the "appropriate assessing authority" under Rule 101A, given the broad jurisdiction conferred by the State Government's notifications.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's contention that the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Central Section, was not the "appropriate assessing authority" for determining the "gross value of fixed assets." The application was dismissed, and the petitioner was given time until May 15, 2006, to respond to the notice if desired. The Technical Member concurred with the judgment.

← Previous Next →