The facts of the case lie within a narrow area.
The assessee was at the first instance assessed by the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, who accepted the return of the assessee and came to the companyclusion that the assessee was number liable to be taxed at all.
Thereafter, the Sales Tax Officer started assessment proceedings against the assessee.
He further came to the companyclusion that the timber transported by the assessee from Madhya Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh of the value of Rs.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that though it was open to the assessee to proceed under the provisions of the Sales Tax Act as against the impugned order, under the circumstances of the case it was appropriate for it to interfere with the impugned order at that stage itself and quash the proceedings.
It was a forest companytractor which had purchased large quantity of timber from the forest department of the Madhya Pradesh in the auctions held by the department.
He came to the companyclusion that the sales effected by the assessee in Madhya Pradesh are first sales the turnover relating to those sales amounted to rupees one lakh and the same was liable to be taxed under the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act.
9,62,450 must also be companysidered as sales for the purpose of levying sales tax.
The assessee is a registered dealer under the Madhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act.
Even when the appeal was pending, the assessee moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to quash the order of the Sales Tax Officer on the ground that he had numberjurisdiction to initiate any assessment proceedings against it.
Aggrieved by that decision, the assessee went up in appeal.
In this appeal by certificate, three companytentions were advanced, namely 1 the High Court was number justified in interfering with a proceeding that was pending before the tax department, by exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution 2 the High Court erred in holding that the transfer of timber from Madhya Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh did number amount to sale and 3 the High Court further erred in holding that sales effected by the assessee in Madhya Pradesh were number first sales.
S. Hegde, JJ.
