1965 (4) TMI 95 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of a single petition challenging multiple assessment orders.
2. Allegations of bias against the assessing officer.
3. Validity of assessment orders and compliance with appellate directives.
4. Jurisdictional limits and statutory exceptions.
5. Alternative remedy and maintainability of the writ petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of a Single Petition Challenging Multiple Assessment Orders:
The petitioner filed a single petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash four assessment orders for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. An objection was raised regarding the maintainability of a single petition challenging multiple orders. The Division Bench held that one writ petition cannot challenge multiple assessment orders pertaining to different years or statutes. Consequently, the petitioner filed additional sets of court fees to regularize the defect, effectively treating the petition as four separate writ petitions.

2. Allegations of Bias Against the Assessing Officer:
The petitioner alleged bias against Sri V.D. Singh, the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, due to an altercation on 10th August 1962, leading to a criminal prosecution initiated by Mr. Singh. The petitioner was acquitted, but an appeal against the acquittal was pending. The petitioner claimed that Mr. Singh's actions, such as putting wrong dates on the account books and threatening prosecution, demonstrated personal bias. The court referred to the principles governing bias, emphasizing that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. The court found that Sri V.D. Singh had a personal bias against the petitioner, rendering the assessment orders null and void.

3. Validity of Assessment Orders and Compliance with Appellate Directives:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the assessment orders, claiming they were passed in violation of appellate directives. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) had set aside the initial assessment orders and remanded the cases for fresh assessments, directing a detailed inquiry into the petitioner's business. However, Sri V.D. Singh passed the assessment orders without conducting any further inquiry. The court found that the assessment orders were substantially a repetition of the previous orders and were based on the same materials, thus violating the appellate directives.

4. Jurisdictional Limits and Statutory Exceptions:
The petitioner argued that Sri V.D. Singh's jurisdictional limit was Rs. 40,000, and he could not assess a dealer at a higher figure. After remand, Mr. Singh assessed the petitioner at Rs. 60,000 for the assessment year 1962-63, which was within his revised jurisdictional limit. The respondent contended that the doctrine of bias is excluded in cases of necessity where only one officer has jurisdiction. However, the court found that other officers had the authority to act as the assessing authority, and the Commissioner could transfer cases to another officer. Hence, the principle of statutory exception was not applicable.

5. Alternative Remedy and Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal. However, the court held that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition, especially where there is a patent denial of justice. Bias is an illegality affecting jurisdiction, and the superior court can issue certiorari to correct such errors. The court cited U.P. State v. Mohd. Nooh, emphasizing that the superior court can intervene even if an appeal was available but not pursued. The court found that the petitioner made a just case for interference.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the assessment orders dated 18th March 1964, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 under the U.P. Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, were quashed. The consequential notices of demand were also set aside. The petitioner was entitled to costs.

← Previous Next →