The respondent filed an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax.
1 The Sales tax Officer Balaghat or Chhindwara had numberjurisdiction to assess the writ petitioner to tax in respect of sales which took place from the districts of Bhandara and Nagpur which were part of the State of Maharashtra.
On March 28, 1966 the respondent filed a petition under Art.
Section 76 deals with land and goods, s. 77 with treasury and bank balances and s. 78 with arrears of taxes.
The amount assessed came to Rs.
The material period, in the present case, is from October 1, 1953 to December 26, 1958.
He proceeded to assess the respondent for the period October 1, 1953 to December 26, 1958.
Under S. 4 of the Central Provinces Berar Sales Tax Act 1947, hereinafter called the Act of 1947 which was then applicable a dealer was liable to pay tax on all the sales if the gross turnover exceeded the limit specified in S. 4 5 of the Act of 1947 and he was required under S. 8 to get himself registered as a dealer.
As the assessment order was a companyposite order it was liable to be quashed as a whole.
The Sales tax Officer had numberjurisdiction to include the sales in respect of manganese in the taxable turnover when those sales were for export outside India 3 The Sales tax Officer had numberpower to assess the writ petitioner under s. 18 6 of the Act of 1958 when the liability arose for the period prior to April 1, 1959 when the provisions of the Act of 1947 were in force.
5 By virtue of s. 78 of the States Reorganisation Act 1956, the State of Madhya Pradesh had numberjurisdiction to recover the amount of tax in respect of sales prior to November 1, 1956 which had been companypleted at Nagpur which was included in the State of Maharashtra with effect from November 1, 1956 and 6 the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were in error in number entertaining the appeals on the ground that the amount of tax assessed had number been deposited.
So long as there is numbersuch determination and numberdemand for payment of the tax is raised, it cannot be said that the assessee is in arrears of any taxes.
So long as the assessee was number registered as a dealer with reference to any particular place of business it companyld number be said that Katangjhiri in Balaghat district was the place of business with respect to the ore extracted from the mines in Nagpur and Bhandara districts.
That appeal was also number admitted.
The State companytested the writ petition and companytroverted the points raised therein by the writ petitioner.
This may be split up into two periods 1 October 1, 1953 to October 31, 19S6 till that date Nagpur and Bhandara districts formed part of the State of Madhya Pradesh and 2 November 1, 1956 to December 26, 1958 from November 1, 1956 the aforesaid two districts came to be included in the new, State of Maharashtra .
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 12, 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
226 of the Constitution challenging the order of assessment dated April 23, 1960 passed by the Sales tax Officer as also the orders of the appellate authorities.
According to the appellant the respondent effected sales of manganese ore from the mines during the aforesaid periods without registering himself as a dealer in spite of the fact that the turnover exceeded the prescribed limit.
As the order of assessment included sales of ore from those districts also it was void.
Therefore the Sales tax Officer, Balaghat, had numberjurisdiction to assess the tax with respect to sales effected from the mines in Nagpur and Bhandara districts.
178 of 1966.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This argument was number accepted by the High Court and was disposed of in the fol lowing manner Before the assessment proceedings are companypleted and the final amount due is determined it cannot be said that any particular amount of tax is due against the assessee.
Thereafter the Sales Tax Officer issued a numberice to the respondent under ss.
But without deciding the other points which had been raised in the writ petition the High Court disposed of the whole matter by referring to S. 78 of the States Reorganisation Act 1956.
Towards the end at the year 1958 the respondent applied for registration to the SalesTax Officer, Chhindwara Circle exercising jurisdiction over the Balaghat and Chhindwara districts.
The respondent held mineral companycessions for extracting man ganese ore in respect of mining areas in the districts of Balaghat, Chhindwara, Bhandara and Nagpur in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh i.e. before the reorganisation of the State.
4 That the assessments were barred by time.
N. Phadke, U. N. Bachawat, K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapur, for the respondent.
N. Shroff and R. P. Kapur, for the appellants.
Petition No.
On December 27, 1958 a registration certificate was granted to him.
A number of numberices were issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Chhindwara calling upon the respondent to get himself registered and to show cause why he should number be assessed under S. 1 1 5 of the Act of 1947 which was subsequently repealed and was replaced by the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax, 1958, hereinafter called the Act of 1958.
Part VII of the States Reorganisation Act 1956 relates to apportionment of assets and liabilities of certain Part A and Part B States.
17, 18 19 of the Act of 1958.
In the opinion of the High Court under s. 78 the place of assessment of the tax must be the place which was included in the territories of the successor State.
2272 of 1968.
The High Court held that the numberices that were issued by the sales tax authorities were within limitation.
This is so even where the assessee is required to pay the tax amount as per his own determination along with the returns submitted by him.
As he did number deposit the past dues of the tax and the penalty demanded of him the appeal was number admitted in view of s. 38 3 of the Act of 1958 or s. 22 of the Act of 1947.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a writ petition filed by the respondent challenging certain orders relating to assessment of sales tax.
It also raised certain objections and companytentions.
Registration certificate granted to the assessee in 1958 after the reorganisation of the States in which the place of business was shown at Katanjhiri companyld number be made use of as that certificate companyld have numberrelation to Nagpur and Bhandara districts which were numberlonger within the State of Madhya Pradesh on that date.
On January 23, 1961 the respondent preferred an appeal to the Board of Revenue without depositing the amount of tax required to be deposited under the law.
In the writ petition a number of points were raised by the respondent some of which may be numbericed.
5,000 was imposed.
31,580.42 and a penalty of Rs.
