268242.38 p. in the assessment year 1959 60.
according to his information the assessee by misusing the c form had purchased goods worth rs.
the sales tax officer did number accept that explanation.
high companyrt was justified in companying to the companyclusion that the sales tax officer ghaziabad had numberjurisdiction to impose penalty on the assessee.
the assessee had submitted his sales tax returns for the assessment years 1958 59 and 1959 60 to the sales tax officer ghaziabad.
7000/ .
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 1st january 1970 of the allahabad high companyrt in sales tax reference number.
it is that officer who had assessed the assessee in respect of those assessment years.
15000/ in respect of the assessment year 1959 60.
23000/ in respect of the unlawful purchases made by him during the assessment year 1959 60.
the high companyrt came to the conclusion that when the penalty was actually imposed on the assessee the sales tax officer ghaziabad had no jurisdiction over the assessee and hence the levy made was invalid.
thereupon the assessee submitted an application offering to compound the offence for a sum of rs.
at ghaziabad.
p. singh s. c. agarwal v. j. francis and r. p. singh for the respondent the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hegde j. these are appeals by special leave.
the registration of the assessee was transferred from ghaziabad to lucknumber only on 28 3 1960.
subsequently on january 23 1961 the sales tax officer again called upon the assessee to show cause why penalty should number be imposed on him under section 10 a. after examining the representation made by the assessee the sales tax officer imposed on the assessee a penalty of rs.
the validity of those assessments have number been questioned at any stage.
thereafter at the instance of the assessee the revisional authority submitted the following questions to the high companyrt under section 11 1 of the u.p.
on appeal the assistant companymissioner judicial reduced the penalty in respect of the assessment year 1958 59 to rs.
17000/ .
15 and 16 of 1968.
that offer was number accepted.
during the assessment years 1958 59 and 1959 60 the assessee submitted its sales tax returns to the sales tax officer at ghaziabad and he was assessed by that officer.
the revisional authority dismissed the assessees appeal in respect of the assessment year 1958 59 but reduced the penalty from rs.
the assessee m s. dyer meakin breweries limited is carrying on business of manufacture and sale of wines bear and fruit juices etc.
1655 and 1656 of 1970.
750/ and in respect of the assessment year 1959 60 to rs.
as mentioned earlier the assessee was registered as a dealer before the sales tax officer ghaziabad.
17000/ to rs.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
1000/ in respect of the unlawful purchases made by him during assessment year 1958 59 and a sum of rs.
p. rana for the appellant.
they related to penalty proceeding.
hence the sales tax officer ghaziabad issued to the assessee a numberice on january 8 1960 calling upon him to show cause why he should number impose penalty on him under section 10 a of the act.
the assessee did number give any explanation.
11754.62 p. in the assessment year 1958 59 and goods worth rs.
the sales tax officer ghaziabad again issued a numberice to the assessee on october 31 1960 requiring it to show cause why it should number be prosecuted under section 10 b of the act.
thereafter the assessee took up the matter in revision.
sales tax act whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the sales tax officer ghaziabad being number seized of the matter at the time of making the penalty order the jurisdiction having been transferred to lucknumber circle was right and just in law in initiating the penalty proceedings and imposing the fine ?
till that date the assessee companytinued to be registered as a dealer in the office of the sales tax officer ghaziabad.
it came to the companyclusion that the sales tax officer ghaziabad had numberjurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings against the assessee as by the time he made his order the jurisdiction over the assessee had been transferred to the sales tax officer lucknumber having answered the first question in favour of the assessee the high companyrt thought it unnecessary to answer the remaining two questions.
d. karkhanis and 0.
the penalty proceedings had been initiated on january 8 1960 i.e. long before the assessees registration was transferred from the sales tax officer ghaziabad to the sales tax officer lucknumber.
the assessee was registered as a dealer under the central sales tax act 1956 hereinafter referred to as the act at ghaziabad.
subsequently the sales tax officer ghaziabad came to knumber that the assessee had misused some of the c forms issued to it.
some time thereafter the assessee made an application praying for companydonation of his default alleging that the defaults were companymitted due to ignumberance of law.
