COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P.versusM/S GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY, GORAKHPUR, ETC. ETC.

A                   COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P.
                                         v.
        M/S GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY,
                    GORAKHPUR, ETC. ETC.

                                  JULY 14, 1994
B
             [KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.]


         U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948-U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 194/J-Rules 6 &
  54--Assessment against North Eastern Railway-Application for reg;.stration
C filed by its Chief Commercial Superintendent-Principal place of business
  declared as Gorakhput-Sales Tax return filed by Chief General Manager,
  .Gorakhput-Assessment made by Sales Tax Officer, Gorakhpur-Validity
  challengeri-Whether application for registration validly filed-Held,
   Ye.1"-Whether Sales Tax Officer at Gorakhpur had jurisdiction to make as-
D sessment-Held, Yes.

          The North Eastern Railway sells, firewood, cigarettes, meals,
    vegetables and certain other articles at various stations. In the assessment
    year 1965-66, an application for registration under the U.P. Sales Tax Act,
    1948 was filed by the Chier Commercial Superintendent, North Eastern
E   Railways, wherein the principal place or business was declared as
    Gorakl1pur. The sales tax return was, however, filed by the Chier General
    Manager, Gorakhpur on the basis or which assessment proceedings were
    held and sales tax Imposed. However the final revising authority held that
    the transactions In question had taken place outside the territorial juris-
F   diction or the Sales Tax Officer and, as such, the assessment orders were
    without jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the revision filed against
    the order. It held that, although the headquarters or the North Eastern
    Railway were situated at Gorakhpur, and the General Manager, North
    Eastern Railway had his office there, the Sales Tax Officer, Gorakhpur
    could make the assessment only In case the General Manager had declared
G   Gorakhpur to be the principal place or business. In the present case there
    is no such declaration. Even if the registration application filed is treated
    as a declaration that cannot be taken to be the declaration by the General
    Manager, who is the assessee as it was filed by the Chier Commercial
    Superintendent. In view of this, and in the absence of any order by the
H   Commissioner under Rule 6(b) or Rule 81, the Sales Tax Officer,
                                        584
            COMMR. OFS.T. v. N.E. RLY. [KULD!PSINGH,J.]                  585

Gorakhpur had no jurisdiction to make the assessment.                           A
      This appeal by way of special leave petition has been filed against
the judgment of the High Court.

      Allowing the appeal, this Court
                                                                                B
      HELD : In the instant case the High Court fell Into patent error in
interpreting the Rules. It cannot be disputed that the assessee in this case
is the North Eastern Railway and the assessment made by the Sales Tax
Officer can only be treated as one having been made against the North
Eastern Railway. The Railway not being a natural entity, had to move the
application for registration through one of its officers. Rule 54(1)(e)
                                                                                c
specifically states that the application for registration can also be made
by any officer duly authorised by the head of the office. It is nobody's case
that the Chief Commercial superintendent who moved the application for
registration was not authorised by the North Eastern Railway. The North
Eastern Railway being an assessee any responsible officer could move an         D
application for registration on its behalf. An assessment order made
against the North Eastern Railway _through any of its officers whether
General Manager or Chief Commercial Superintendent or Controller of
Stores has to be ordinarily treated as an assessment order against the
North Eastern Railway. It has not been the case of the North Eastern            E
Railway at any stage that the officer of the railway who filed the registra-
tion application and the officer in whose name the assessment order was
passed had no authority to act on behalf of the North Eastern Railway.
This Court is of the opinion that the application for registration was
validly filed by the Chief Commercial Superintendent on behalf of the
North Eastern Railway. In the application it was. specifically stated that      F
the principal place of business was situated at Gorakhpur and as such,
the Sales Tax Officer at Gorakhpur had the jurisdiction to deal with the
matter. The Sales Tax Officer at Gorakhpur was fully justified in under-
taking the assessment proceedings in respect of the North Eastern Railway
under the Act. [584-G-H, 589-A-C]                                               G
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3037 of
1980 etc. etc.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 17.4.79 of the Allahabad High
Court in S.T.R. No. 509 of 1976.                                     H
    586                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A            R.C. Verma, T.N. Singh and R.B. Misra for the Appellant.

             N.N, Goswamy, B. Parthasarthy and R.N. Poddar for the Respon-
    dents.

             The Judgments of the Court was delivered by
B
           KULDIP SINGH, J. The North Eastern Railway sells coal, firewood
    cigarettes, meals, vegetables and certain other articles at various railway
    stations. In the assessment year 1965-66 an application for registration
    under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (the Act) was filed by the Chief
C   Commercial Superintendent, North Eastern Railway wherein the principal
    place of business was declared as Gorakhpur, The application was allowed
    by the Sales Tax Officer. The sales tax return was, however, filed by the
    8hief General Manager, Gorakhpur on the basiS of which assessment
    proceedings were held and sales tax was imposed. A separate assessment
    was also made by the Sales Tax Officer against the Controller of Stores.
D   Both, the General Manager and the Controller of Stores filed revision{.
    against the assessment orders. While upholding the assessment on merits,
    the revising authority remanded the matter to the Sales Tax Officer on the
    ground that t\vd assessment orders could not be made in respect of the
    North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. The railway authorities filed further
E   revisions before the higher authorities under the Act. The fmal revising
    authority under the Act came to the conclusion that the transactions in
    question had taken place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Sales Tax
    Officer and, as such, the assessment orders were without jurisdiction. It
    was further held that the railway authorities were not dealers as defined
    under the Act and, as such were not liable to pay the sales tax. Although
F   a reference was made to the High Court by framing six questions of law
    but keeping in view the amendment to the Act, the High Court treated the
    reference as a revision petition. The High Court by its order dated April
    17, 1979 dismissed the revision petition. This appeal by way of special leave
    petition is against the judgment of the High Court.
G
          Rules 6 and 54 of the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948 (the Rules) to the
    extent they are relevant are reproduced hereunder :

               "Rule 6. Power of Assessment.

H                 (a) The Sales Tax Officer shall be the assessing authority in
    COMMR. OF S.T. v. N.E. RLY. [KULDIP SINGH, J.)              587

respect of the dealers carrying on business within the limits of his   A
jurisdiction.

    (b) If a dealer carries on business within the limited of juris-
diction of more than one Sales Tax Officer, he shall declare one
of the places of his business as the principal place of business in
Uttar Pradesh. The Sales Tax Officer within whose jurisdiction the
                                                                       B
principal place of business so declared by the dealer is situated
shall be the assessing authority in respect of such. dealer. In case
of default on the part of any dealer to declare one of his places of
business as the principal place of business in Uttar Pradesh, the
Commissioner of Sales Tax shall determine the Sales Tax Officer        C
who will be the assessing authority in respect of such dealer and
his decision shall be final :

    Provided that in the case of any Government Department
carrying on business within limits of jurisdiction of more than one    D
Sales Tax Officer, the Commissioner, or any officer authorised by
him in this behalf, may order that each Sales Tax Officer within
whose jurisdiction that Government Department is carrying on
business shall be the assessing authority in respect of the place or
places of business within the limits of his jurisdiction, or permit
any Government Department to declare one place of business as          E
the principal place of business in Uttar Pradesh in which case the
Sales Tax Officer within whose jurisdiction such declared principal
place of business is situated shall be the assessing authority in
respect of the Government Department concerned.
                                                                       F
Rule 54. Application for registration.

    (1) An application by a dealer for registration under sub-sec-
tion (1) of Section 8-A shall be made to the Sales Tax Officer in
Form XIV. The application shall be accompanied by copies of
passport size photographs of the proprietor, or of each adult male     G
partner of the firm, or of each adult male co-partner of the Hindu
Undivided Family, as the case may be, duly attested by a lawyer
or a Gazotted Officer, and shall be under the signature of .

   (a) ........................................ ..                     H
    58X                         SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. l S.C.R.

A               (b) ......................................... .

                (c) ......................................... .

                (d) .......................................:..

               (e) the Head of the office or any other officer duly authorised
B
            by him, in the case of a department of a State Government or the
            Central Government; or

                (!) ......................................... .

c following
        The Allahabad High Court dismissed the revision petition on the
            reasoning :

             "In the present case, therefore although the head quarters of the
             North Eastern Railway were situated at Gorakhpur, and the
             General Manager, North Eastern Railway had his office there, the
D            Sales Tax Officer Gorakhpur could make the assessment only in
             case the General Manager had declared Gorakhpur to be the
           · principal place of business. In the present case there is no such
             declaration. Even if the registration application filed in Form 14
             is treated as a declaration that can not be taken to be a declaration
             by the General Manager, North Eastern Railway, who is the
E
             assessee as it was filed by the Chief Commercial Superintendent,
             North Eastern Railway. In view of this, and in the absence of any
             order by the Commissioner under Rule 6(b) or Rule 81, the Sales
             Tax Officer, Gorakhpur had no jurisdiction to make. the assess-
           . ment.  11



F
          We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in
    interpreting the Rules. It cannot be disputed that the assessee in this case
    is the North Eastern Railway and the assessment made by the Sales Tax
    Officer can only be treated as one having been made against the North
    Eastern Railway. The railway not being natural entity, had to move the
G   application for registration through one of its officers. Rule 54 (l)(e)
    specifically states that the application for registration can also be made by
    any officer duly authorised by the head of the office. It is nobody's case
    that the Chief Commercial Superintendent who moved the application for
    registration was not authorised by the North Eastern Railway. The North
H   Eastern Railway being an assessee any responsible officer could move an
             COMMR. OFS.T. v. N.E. RL Y. [KULDIP SINGH, J.]             589

application for registration on its behalf. An assessment order made against   A
the 1-lorth Eastern Railway through any of its officers whether Genoral
Manager or Chief Commercial Superintendent or Controller of Stores has
to be ordinarily treated as an assessment order against the North Eastern
Railway. It has not been the case of the North Eastern Railway at any stage
that the officer of the Railway who filed the registration application and
the officer in whose name the assessment order was passed had no
                                                                               B
authority to act on behalf of the North Eastern Railway. We are of the view
that the application for registration was validly filed by the Chief Commer-
cial Superintendent on behalf of the North Eastern Railway. In the applica-
tion it was specifically stated that the principal place of business was
situated at Gorakhpur and, as such, the Sales Tax Officer at Gorakhpur         c
had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. We, therefore, hold that the
Sales Tax Officer at Gorakhpur was fully justified in undertaking the
assessment proceedings in respect of the North Eastern Railway under the
Act.

        It is unfortuna.te that the assessment under the Act in respect of the D
  assessment year 1965-66 has not as yet been finalised. During the three
  decades there may have been many changes in the law on the subject. We
  allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and also the
  orders of the authorities under the Act. We remand the case before the
. Sale Tax Officer, Gorakhpur with a direction to hold the assessment E
  proceedings afresh. He shall pass fresh assessment order after hearing the
  railway authorities. The railway authorities shall be at liberty to raise all
 the objections available to them under the law. The appeal is allowed in
 the above terms. No costs.

       Civil Appeal Nos. 3429-30 of 1991.                                      F

       We have today pronounced judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3037 of
1980 titled Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Mis. General
Manager, Nonh Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur. We allow these appeals on the
same reasoning, in similar terms and grant the same relief. The impugned G
judgment of the High Court dated August 23, 1982 is set aside. The orders
of all the authorities under the Act are set aside. The matter is remanded
back to the Sales Tax Officer, Gorakhpur to hold the assessment proceed-
ings afresh after hearing the railway authorities. No costs.

A.G.                                                      Appeals allowed.