Commissioner Of Sales Tax, New ... vs Tara Chand Sahni & Sons
1991 Latest Caselaw 457 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) The Financial Commissioner, Delhi has made this reference under Section 21(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, as enforced in Delhi in the relevant assessment year 1969-70 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

(2) The respondent is a firm engaged in the purchase and sale of towels, bed-sheets, pillow covers and handkerchiefs (hereinafter referred to as the dealer) It had not filed any return under the Act. On 14th May, 1970, Shri B.L. Gupta, Assistant Sales Tax Officer. Ward No. 9 issued a notice to the dealer in Form S.T XIV. There is nothing on the record to indicate as to what transpired after the issuance of the said notice, as far as Shri B.L. Gupta is concerned. As per the statement of the case. proceedings for assessment were taken up by one Shri R.C. Minocha, who was also an Assistant Sales Tax Offlcer. As per the order sheet, the proceeding commenced atleast on 19th November. 1970 when the partner of the dealer firm produced the books of accounts before Shri Minoeha. The case was thereafter adjourned from lime to time and the hearing was concluded on 5th April, 1971. Thereafter Shri Minocha passed the assessment order on 10th June, 1971. The gross turn over of the dealer was computed at Rs. 10, 46,170.48 and after deducting the tax free sales, it was found that the dealer was liable to pay Sales Tax of Rs. 4500.00 and penalty of Rs.500.00 .

(3) An appeal was filed by the dealer to the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax against the said order of Shri Minocha No question was raised by the dealer with regard to the jurisdiction of Shri Minocha to pass. the assessment order. After the appeal was dismissed, a revision was filed before the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi but with no success. A second revision was thereafter filed before the Financial Commissioner when, for the first time, a contention was raised on behalf of the dealer to the effect that as notice under Form S.T.XIV had been issued by Shri B.L. Gupta, therefore, Shri Minocha had no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order. This contention was entertained by the Financial Commissioner even though the same had not been raised in the grounds of revision and bad been argued for the first time before him. It is recorded in the orders of the Financial Commissioner that the representative of the Department conceded that there was no specific order of transfer of the case from Shri B.L.Gupta to the file of Shri Minocha and thereupon the Financial Commissioner came to the conclusion that Shri Minocha bad no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order as be had not been appointed as the appropriate assessing authority in respect to the petitioner by a specific order in writing of the Sales Tax Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner did not place much reliance on the fact that by order dated 15th April, 1968, Shri R.C. Minocha bad been appointed, by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, as the assessing authority in respect of the entire Union Territory of Delhi (Ward I to XXIX).

(4) On an application having been filed under Section 21(1) of the Act, the Financial Commissioner has referred the following two questions to this Court:

"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Financial Commissioner was justified in holding that Shri R.C. Minocha, Assistant Sales Tax Officer was not competent to pass the assessment order."

2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Financial Commissioner was justified in not remanding the case for fresh assessment by a competent assessing authority when he come to the conclusion that Shri Minocha was not competent to pass the assessment order."

(5) Before dealing with the rival contentions, it will be appropriate to refer to the relevant portions of the Act and the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951 which have been framed under the said Act.

(6) Section 3 of the Act provides for the appointment of a Commissioner of Sales Tax to be the person to carry out the purposes of the Act. This appointment was to be made by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi as be was known at that time and Along with the Commissioner of Sales Tax, other persons could also be appointed to assist the Commissioner of Sales Tax. The assessment of tax is dealt with by Section 11. Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 deals with a case of assessment of a registered dealer while assessment of an unregistered dealer is dealt with by Section 11(2). The dealer in the present case was an un-registered one and sub-section (2) of Section 11 which is applicable, reads as under: "(2)If upon information which has come into his possession the Commissioner is satisfied that any dealer, who has been liable to pay tax under this Act in respect of any period but has failed to get himself registered, the Commissioner shall proceed in such manner as may be prescribed to assess to the best of his judgment the amount of tax due from the dealer in respect of such period and alt subsequent periods and in making such assessment shall give the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being hard; and the Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that the default was made without reasonable cause, direct that the dealer shall pay by way of penalty in addition to the amount of tax so assessed a sum not exceeding one and a half times that amount."

(7) Though various provisions of the Act including Section 11(2) refer only to the Commissioner as being the appropriate authority. Section 15 of the Act gives jurisdiction to the Commissioner to delegate his powers under the Act to any person appointed under Section 3 to assist him. In other words, officers like Sales Tax Officer, Assistant Sales Tax Officer, who are appointed under Section 3 of the Act, can be delegated powers of the Commissioner under Section 15 of the Act. Under the Delhi Sales Tax Rules. 1951 reference is made to the appropriate assessing authority, who has the jurisdiction to make an assessment. Rules 2(b) defines an appropriate assessing authority and the same reads as follows : "(B)"Appropriate Assessing Authority" in respect of any particular dealer means the Sales Tax Officer within whose jurisdiction the dealer's place of business is situated, or if he has more than one place of business in the Sales of Delhi, the Sales Tax Officer within whose jurisdiction the Head Office in the State of Delhi of such business is situated or in respect of dealer who has no place of business in the State of Delhi but is carrying on the business of selling goods (including goods sold in the execution of contracts) in the State of Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as Ex-Delhi dealer) the Sales Tax Officer, specifically nominated by the Commissioner for the purpose."

(8) Assessment to tax and imposition of penalty is dealt with by Rule 32 which reads as follows : "32When it appears to the Appropriate Assessing Authority to be necessary to make an assessment under Section 11 in respect of a dealer, he shall serve a notice in form S.T.XIV upon him :- (a) calling upon him to produce his books of accounts and other documents, which such authority wishes to examine, together with any objection which the dealer may wish to prefer and any evidence which he may wish to produce in support thereof; and (b) staling the period or the return-periods in respect of which assessment is proposed, and he shall fix a date giving reasonable time for producing such accounts and documents and for considering any objection which the dealer may prefer. Provided that the accounts of an Ex-Delhi dealer may, on the request of the dealer, be examined by the appropriate assessing authority at any central place in the State in which the Ex- Delhi dealer resides or has his place of business."

(9) The contention of Shri Chawla on behalf of the petitioner is that an appropriate assessing authority is appointed in respect of a territory. There is nothing in law which debars the appointment of more than one assessing authority in respect of one territory. He further contends that in the instant case, the place of business of the dealer fell within the territory of which the assessing authority of Ward-9 had territorial jurisdiction but by virtue of the aforesaid order of 1968, Shri Minocha had also been given authority in respect of the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi including Ward-9. Therefore, in respect of Ward-9, there were two assessing authorities viz., Shri Gupta and Shri Minocha. It is further submitted that on a correct interpretation of Section 11 of the Act. jurisdiction is not assumed by the issuance of any notice in form S.T. XIV. Any officer having territorial jurisdiction could pass an assessment order.

(10) In the present case, both Shri Gupta and Shri Minocha had territorial jurisdiction but the assessment proceedings were conducted only by Shri Minocha who, after giving full opportunity to the dealer, passed the impugned assessment order. The learned counsel submits that merely because notice in form S T.XIV had been issued by Shri Gupta, does not mean that Shri Minocha had no jurisdiction to pass the assessment order specially in view of the fact that the two officers did not concurrently exercise their jurisdiction to pass an assessment order. There is nothing on the record to show that apart from issuing a notice in form S.T. Xiv, any further steps were taken by Shri Gupta in making the assessment order.

(11) Shri Sangal, on the other hand contends that the proceedings were initialed by Shri Gupta with the issuance of a notice in form S T Xiv and thereafter unless and until there is a specific order in writing transferring the case from Shri Gupta to Shri Minocha, jurisdiction to pass the assessment order will vest only in Shri Gupta and not in Shri Minocha.

(12) Before referring to the decisions cited by the learned counsel, it appears to us, on the reading of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules that the Act contemplates the assessment to be made either by the Commissioner or by such of the officers who are appointed under Section 3 of the Act to assist him. When a number of officers are appointed under Section 3, then the discretion is left to the Commissioner as to the manner in which the work is to be divided amongst them. The jurisdiction in this behalf is conferred on the Commissioner by Section 15 of the Act. There is nothing in the Act which prohibits the Commissioner from empowering two or more such officers for assisting him in making the assessment in respect of a single territory. The jurisdiction is determined territory-wise and it is that Sales Tax Officer who will have the jurisdiction to make the assessment order, within whose territory the business of the dealer is situate. In other words, the jurisdiction of the assessing authority is not determined by the quantum of sales nor is it determined by the nature of the bu-.iness but Rule 2(b) contemplates the place of business as being the determining factor in order to ascertain as to who is to be the assessing authority. The division of work is done territory wise by appropriate orders being passed by the Commissioner in this behalf. Whoever is the officer appointed in respect of a territory in which the business is carried on, is entitled to exercise jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act. If more than one officer is so appointed in respect of a single territory, then all of them would have the jurisdiction to lake action under Section 11. It would, however, not mean that both or more of the assessing authorities having territorial jurisdiction can simultaneously proceed to assess the dealer in respect of the sales transactions of a particular area.

(13) A dealer has a right to be taxed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He has to be given adequate opportunity to represent his case and an assessment order can be passed after the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Act and the Rules are complied with. It is not for the dealer, however, to choose as to who has to pass the assessment order. It is for the Commissioner to decide as to who is to be the assessing authority. Rule 2(b) gives jurisdiction to every Sales Tax Officer within whose jurisdiction the dealer's place of business is situate, to pass the assessment order. If there are more than one Sales Tax Officer in respect of the place of business of a dealer, then each of them will have the jurisdiction to assess but it is not for the dealer to decide as to which one of them will exercise the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction to assess under Rule 2 (b) is determined by only one factor and that is whether the dealer is carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer. Rule 2(b) does not contemplate, where dealer has a place of business in Delhi, a Sales Tax Officer being nominated even though that Sales Tax Officer may have no territorial jurisdiction in respect of that dealer. To put it differently, a Sales Tax Officer, for example, in respect of Ward 11 would have no jurisdiction to assess a dealer, whose business is carried on within Ward 9 but if there are more than one Sales Tax Officer in respect of Ward-9, then each of them would have the jurisdiction to assess. The powers under Section 15 are delegated with reference to the territory and each Sales Tax Officer has jurisdiction to assess in respect of the territory for which he is appointed as an assessing authority.

(14) Learned counsel for the dealer has sought to rely upon the decision of a single bench of this Court in the case of M/s Siya Ram Bros. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax and others. Three writ petitions were filed by M/s Siya Ram Bros. being C.W. 18/67, C.W. 19/67 and C.W. 143/67. The main judgment dated 21st December, 1972 was delivered in C.W. 19/67 by S.N. Shankar, J. It was sought to be contended that two Sales Tax Officers could not be appointed for the same Ward who could exercise concurrent jurisdiction. It was also submitted that the Commissioner of Sales Tax had no jurisdiction to transfer the case from one Sales Tax Officer to another in the same Ward. After interpreting various provisions of the Act and the Rules, the aforesaid contentions on behalf of the dealer were repelled. It was held that there was no warrant, for the submission that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to appoint two appropriate assessing authorities in respect of one area. It was, however, noted that : "THE existence of two Sales Tax Officers, therefore, in respect of ward where the petitioners carried on business was wholly in accordance with law so long as there was only one appropriate assessing authority in respect of each particular dealer carrying on business in this ward."

(15) It is obvious that the aforesaid passage can only mean that even though two or more Sales Tax Officers may have the concurrent jurisdiction, but more than one officer cannot assess a dealer. To put it differently, any of the assessing authorities having the jurisdiction in the area could have passed the assessment orders and prohibition was only to two or more assessing authorities passing more than one assessment order. The learned single Judge further held that the Commissioner was competent to distribute and allocate the work to each Sales Tax Officer and, in this regard, he had the power to transfer the assessment from one assessing authority appointed for the area to another similarly appointed authority. Writ Petition No. 19/67 was accordingly dismissed.

(16) In Writ Petition No. 18/67, there were two Sales Tax Officers involved, one Shri U.R. Jain, who was Sales Tax Officer of Ward No. 15 and the other was Shri S.K. Mehra of Ward No. 28. It was, however, found that by a specific order dated 30th August, 1965, the Commissioner bad declared Shri U R. Jain as the assessing authority in respect of M/s Siya Ram Bros. In view of this specific order having been passed by the Commissioner, the learned Judge held that the other Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to assess or levy penalty or issue notice. The said decision is of little assistance to the petitioner in the present case. There is no specific order on the record, like the one which was passed in Siya Ram's case, to the effect that one of the two assessing officers having concurrent jurisdiction, was specifically declared as the assessing: authority. Shri B.L. Gupta was at no point of time, as per the record of this case, declared the sole assessing authority. Both Shri Gupta and Shri Minocha were the appropriate assessing authorities.

(17) Shri Sangal then referred to the decision of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in the case of Kishan Chand & Co. v. S K. Jain, 1965 Stc 521. In this case, the dealer was carrying on business at Amritsar. It was the assessing authority at Amritsar who had the jurisdiction to assess. The assessing authority at Chandigarh had also issued notice to the dealer at Arnritsar. The said notice issued by the assessing authority from Chandigarh was sought to be challenged by way of a writ petition It was, inter alta. contended that the officer at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice The assessing authority at Chandigarh had also been empowered to exercise co- ordinate jurisdiction. The Court came to the conclusion that the Act did not contemplate the existence of two assessing authorities, one sitting and functioning at Chandigarh and the other at Amritsar, dealing concurrently with the assessment proceedings of a dealer whose place of business is at Amritsar. Nevertheless it hastened to add .- "WE do not mean, and of course we do not hold. that an assessment made by the re pondent in respect of a dealer whose place of business is at Amritsar would be open to be struck down as invalid for want of inherent jurisdiction, and this, not even if the assessment proceedings bad properly been commenced before the assessing authority functioning at Amritsar, nor do we hold that an irregular manner of seizing of an assessment proceeding would by itself attract jurisdictional infirmity necessarily vitiating a final assessment order. All that we hold in the instant case is that without a proper older transferring assessment proceedings completely from the file of the appropriate Assessing Authority actually serVed of the present assessment proceedings at Amritsar, to the record of the respondent at Chandigarh, on a proper consideration of both the exigencies of tax collection and inconvenience to be caused to the assessed, the respondent's action is operating to the serious prejudice of the petioner's rights, and the respondent should be restrained from so acting."

(18) It is clear from the aforesaid observation that the notices issued by the assessing authority from Chandigarh were quashed because a serious prejudice was sought to be caused but the High Court categorically came ro the Conclusion that the assessment made by an assessing authority other than the one at Amritsar, cannot be struck down as invalid for want of inherent jurisdiction. The subject matter before the Punjab High Court was a notice which was issued during the pendency of the assessment proceedings. In the present case, however, the assessment itself nad been framed by Shri Minocha, and no objection having been taken with regard to his jurisdiction; therefore, applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision in Kishan Chand case (Gupra), it would follow that such an assessment cannot be struck down as being invalid for want of inherent jurisdiction. This is for the simple reason that Shri Minocha was also the assessing authority in respect of the area in which the dealer carried on his business.

(19) Learned counsel also referred to the case of Madan Lal Mahawar v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 1965 Stc 1071. We do not find how this can be of any assistance to him because it was held that the assessment made without serving of notice in form St Xiv or on the basis of irregular or incomplete notice was only an irregularity and did not touch the jurisdiction to assess and such irregularity would not have made the assessment void. It was further held that the order of transfer of the case, made by the Commissioner, from one Commercial Tax Officer to another could not be struck down In Madan Lal's case, there was an express order of transfer from one Commercial Tax Officer to another and the Court was not considering a situation nor did it make any observation with regard to it, where there was no specific order entrusting to any particular assessing authority.

(20) Lastly the learned Counsel relied upon the decision in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mittal Radios, 1975 Stc (Vol. 36) 29. It was held in that case that where both the Assistant Sales Tax Officer and the Sales Tax Officer bad concurrent jurisdiction over an assessed, then, both of them could initiate and conclude the assessment proceedings. In such a situation if one of the two officers initiates the proceedings, then he should conclude them, unless a superior officer passes an order of transfer. That officer himself has no power, it was held, to abdicate his jurisdiction and shift it on the other. In the present case, however, it is not known whether Shri B.L. Gupta himself abdicated his jurisdiction and shifted it on to Shri Minocha or not The reason for the absence of relevant facts in this be bait is that this contention was raised before the Financial Commissioner for the first time Be that as it may, there is nothing on regard to show that apart from the issuance of a notice under form St Xiv, any further action was taken by Shri Gupta. On the contrary, the record of the case shows that proceedings were conducted only by Sbri Minocha before whom the dealer and its representative appeared from time to time. Where a Sales Tax Officer like Shri Gupta abandons the proceedings, even assuming that he had initiated them by issuing a notice in form S T. Xiv, we do not see any provision of law Which can possibly prohibit another officer of competent jurisdiction from passing a valid assessment order. It is not in dispute that Shri Minocha could initiate and complete the assessment of the dealer. In our opinion effective hearings took place only before Shri Minocha and there is nothing on the record to show that Shri Gupta had any discussion with the dealer or its representative with regard to its assessment.

(21) Shri Chawla, learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly drawn our attention to the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shyam Manohar Dixit v. Sales Tax Officer. 1970 (Vol. 26) 439, wherein it was held that once a person is appointed as a Sales Tax Officer in a Circle, then he automatically becomes the assessing authority in respect of all the dealers carrying on business within the territorial limits of his Circle by virtue of the provisions of the Act and he is empowered to make the assessment under the Act. It was further observed that no separate authorisation is needed from the State Government empowering such Sales Tax Officer to make the assessment under the Act because he derives that power from the provisions of the Act itself. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision to the present case we find that with the appointment of Shri Minocha as the assessing authority for the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi, be became empowered to make assessment of the dealers carrying on business in the Union Territory of Delhi and no separate authorisation, in this behalf was required. It is to be borne in mind, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Woodcrafts Enterprises Corporation Pvt Ltd v. Sales Tax Officer, 1972 (Vol. 29) Stc 315. that service of a notice in form St Xiv was merely a part of the proceedure which was required to be followed by the assessing authority and the jurisdiction to make an assessment did not depend on the issuance or validity of such a notice. In other words, a Sales Tax Officer does not acquire jurisdiction merely by issuing a notice in form St XIV. Therefore, merely because a notice was issued in form St Xiv by Shri B.L Gupta, it would not mean that he was vested with the exclusive jurisdiction of assessing the dealer. As we have already noted, after the issuance of the notice, no further action appears to have been taken by Shri Gupta. Thereafter the assessment proceedings were started the concluded by Shri Minocha.

(22) Strong reliance was placed by Shri Chawla on the decision of a single bench of this Court in M/s New Fields Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer & Another, 1977 (Vol 16), Delhi Sales Tax Cases.H1. The dealer in that case was carrying on business at Delhi within the jurisdiction of Assistant Sales Tax Officer,Ward 14. The said Assistant Sales Tax Officer had. issued a notice to the dealer asking him to get himself registered. Thereafter subsequent notices were also issued by the said Assistant Sales Tax Officer. In January. 1969, however, that dealer started receiving notices from another Sales Tax Officer viz., Sales Tax Officer (SIB). The second Sales Tax Officer ultimately completed the assessment and levied tax and penalty on the dealear. It was, inter alia, contended that in the absence of a proper order of transfer of the case from Sales Tax Officer, Ward-14 to Sales Tax Officer (SIB), the assessments which were made were without jurisdiction. It was not in dispute that the Sales Tax Officer (SIB) had been appointed, like Shri Minocha in the present case, as the assessing authority in respect of the entire Union Territory of Delhi. Reputing the contention on behalf of the dealer, it was observed by H.L. Anand, J. as follows: "8.After hearing learned counsel for the parties it appears to me that this contention of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Under Section 3(1) of the Local Act, for carrying out the purposes of this Act, the Chief Commissioner may appoint a person to be Commissioner of Sales Tax together with such other persons to "assist him" as the Chief Commissioner thinks fit. Rule 2(f) of the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, 1951 defines the expression "Sales Tax Officer" as the person appointed by that designation by the Chief Commissioner under section 3 of the Act to assist the Commissioner Under Rule 88 of the said Rules, the power of superintendence over the administration and the collection of the sales tax leviable under the Act is vested in the Chief Commissioner and subject to his general control and superintendence "the Commissioner shall control all officers empowered under the Act". The appointment, therefore, of any officer as Sales Tax Officer by the Chief Commissioner under Section 3 of the Act does not confer by its own force jurisdiction on such an officer to initiate or conduct proceedings under the Act because the appointment by the Chief Commissioner has to be in terms "to assist the Commissioner" It merely enables such an officer to exercise jurisdiction in relation to the Act either with reference to the territory or with reference to the class of work which may be specifically entrusted to him by the Commissioner both by virtue of fact that he had been appointed to assist him and also because subject to the general control and superintendence of the Chief Commissioner the area within or in relation to which the Sales Tax Officer has to exercise jurisdiction must. therefore, depend on the direction that may be made by the Commissioner from time to time. It is true that for the purpose of administration of the Act, the Union Territory of Delhi his been divided into various wards and ordinarily there is one Sales Tax Officer, who is empowered to exercise jurisdiction by the Commissioner pursuant to his appointment by the Chief Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction in relation to it or to a class of cases that may either be entrusted to him. It is also true that by virtue of the power of control and superintendence exercised by the Commissioner any Sales Tax Officer could be empowered to take cognizance and deal with cases relating to areas other than their own or of class of cases other than those being dealt with by him. Such a power is implicit in the power of control and superintendence of the Commissioner. There is, however, nothing in the Act or the Rules which may derogate from the authority of the Commissioner to empower any Sales Tax Officer to exercise jurisdiction either in relation to the whole or in part of the Union Territory of Delhi or in relation to the various or some of the classes of dealers. Such an object may be achieved by the Commissioner by transferring a case or class of cases from one Sales Tax Officer to another but there is nothing to prevent the Commissioner from empowering any Sales Tax Officer, duly appointed as such by the Chief Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction in respect of the entire Union Territory of Delhi or in respect of a particular class of dealers or particular class of cases. The order of the Commissioner of Sales Tax made on July 17, 1968, by which certain Sales Tax Officers, including Shri H.S. Birdi, were appointed as assessing authority in respect of the entire Union territory of Delhi was made in exercise of undoubted authority of the Commissioner and, therefore, conferred ample power on him to take seized of any case or class of cases in respect of any ward or ward in which the Union Territory has been divided for giving effect to the provision of the Act. In this view of the matter neither an order transfer nor any order of delegation was necessary to enable Shri H.S. Birdi to take seizen of the matters, which were previously being dealt with by the Sales Tax Officer, Ward No. 14."

(23) We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations of the learned Judge. Shri Minocha also, like in New Field's case (supra) was appointed as an Assessing Officer (SIB) and, therefore, given the jurisdiction to assess the dealers in the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi. He was therefore, an assessing authority who was competent to pass an assessment order. No doubt no specific order by the Commissioner is on the record authorising Shri Minocha to assess the dealer but the general order appointing Shri Minocha as the assessing authority in respect of the whole of the Union Territory of Delhi gave him the jurisdiction to assess the dealer. No specific order in this regard was necessary or called for specially when Shri Gupta had taken no effective steps to assess the dealer.

(24) For the aforesaid reasons, question No. 1 is answered in the negative and in favor of the Commissioner of Sales Tax.

(25) As regards question No. 2, we are firmly of the opinion that the Financial Commissioner was not justified in quashing the assessment order This is more so because the Punjab High Court in Krishan Chand's case (supra) has clearly held that the assessment orders do not become invalid merely because of such procedural irregularities.

(26) Be that as it may, in view of our answer to question No. 1 being in favor of the Commissioner, the said question which has been referred to us has become academic. '

(27) There will be no order as to costs.