Case: Keshrichand Pushraj Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa, and Others

G. K. MISRA, C.J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm. It purchases jute. It has two places of business - one at the Malgodown in Cuttack City and the other at Tarpur in the district of Cuttack. Without giving separate returns of its turnovers of purchases in Cuttack City and Tarpur before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle, and Cuttack II Circle, respectively, the petitioner filed one joint return in respect of both the turnovers before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle. In respect of the turnover of purchases at Tarpur, the petitioner gave a nil return with an accompanying statement that the return of the same had been filed before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle. Mr. Mohapatra, the learned standing counsel, concedes before us that purchase tax has been paid in respect of both the turnovers on the basis of a joint return filed before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle. He, however, contends that in respect of turnover of purchases held at Tarpur, the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle, was justified in proceeding with assessment as Tarpur was within his jurisdiction. 2. Legally, the contention of the learned standing counsel is sound and must be upheld. This is supported by rule 26 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, which runs thus :26. Submission of consolidated return by dealer having more places of business than one. - (1) Where a dealer has places of business within the jurisdiction of more than one sale tax authority the Commissioner may by order in writing direct that such dealer shall instead of submitting returns in form IV or in form IV-A, as the case may be, in respect of each place of business submit one consolidated return in form IV or form IV-A, as the case may be, to such sales tax authority and in respect of such places of business of the dealer as may be specified in the order and may, likewise, modify or annual such orders. (2) The dealer in respect of whom an order has been passed under sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to be a dealer of the circle in which he has been permitted to submit a consolidated return for the purposes of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It would appear from the aforesaid rule that when a dealer has more than one place of business, he must approach the Commissioner for giving sanction to or the Commissioner suo moto may permit the filing of a consolidated return before the sales tax authority of one place of business. If such an order is passed, the dealer shall be deemed to be a dealer of the circle in which he has been permitted to submit a consolidated return. 3. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner did not take the permission of the Commissioner. It did not comply with rule 26 and, accordingly, the return filed by it before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle, cannot absolve it from the responsibility of filing a return in respect of the turnover of purchases at Tarpur lying within the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle. The Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle, was therefore perfectly justified in passing an order of assessment. 4. Despite out holding in favour of the revenue that law justifies the impugned assessments, we are inclined to quash those assessments as it has come to out notice that, in fact, purchase tax has been paid on the gross turnover of both the places of business. There is therefore no reason why the dealer should be pursued further. We accordingly quash the impugned assessments in respect of quarters ending 31st December, 1963, and 31st March, 1964. The assessments made by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle, on the consolidated return remains valid.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]Mr. Mohapatra, the learned standing counsel, concedes before us that purchase tax has been paid in respect of both the turnovers on the basis of a joint return filed before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle. He, however, contends that in respect of turnover of purchases held at Tarpur, the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle, was justified in proceeding with assessment as Tarpur was within his jurisdiction2. Legally, the contention of the learned standing counsel is sound and must be upheld. This is supported by rule 26 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules3. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner did not take the permission of the Commissioner. It did not comply with rule 26 and, accordingly, the return filed by it before the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle, cannot absolve it from the responsibility of filing a return in respect of the turnover of purchases at Tarpur lying within the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle. The Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle, was therefore perfectly justified in passing an order of assessment4. Despite out holding in favour of the revenue that law justifies the impugned assessments, we are inclined to quash those assessments as it has come to out notice that, in fact, purchase tax has been paid on the gross turnover of both the places of business. There is therefore no reason why the dealer should be pursued further. We accordingly quash the impugned assessments in respect of quarters ending 31st December, 1963, and 31st March, 1964. The assessments made by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack I Circle, on the consolidated return remains valid.