M/S. DEEPAK AGRO FOODSversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

                    [2008] 10 S.C.R. 877


              MIS. DEEPAK AGRO FOODS                          A
                            v.
           STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
           (Civil Appeal Nos.4327-28 of 2008)
                      JULY11,2008
                                                              B
          [C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.]
     Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - Chapter IV - s.29 -
Fresh assessment -Limitation - Held: If assessment order is
set aside by Appellate Authority, fresh assessment has to be .
completed within two years from date of communication of the : C
order in appeal to the Assessing Authority and not from the
date of order in appeal.                       .
     Judgment I Order - "Null and void" order and "illegal or
irregular" order -Distinction between - Explained and eluci- D
dated.
     The High Court, by the impugned orders, set aside
assessment orders passed under the Rajasthan Sales Tax
Act, 1994, in respect of the assessment years 1995-96 and
1996-97 and remanded the cases for fresh assessments E ·
by a new Assessing Officer, to be nominated by the Com-
missione_r of .Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan.
      The Appellant contended that the assessment orders
 having been made after expiry of the period of limitation,
 were null and void and should have been annulled and F
 that by remanding the matter back to the Assessing Of-
 ficer for fresh assessment, the High Court not only ex-
 tended the statutory period prescribed for completion of
 assessment, it also conferred jurisdiction upon the As-
 sessing Officer, which he otherwise lacked on expiry of G
·the said period.
    It was also contended by the Appellant that the as-
sessment orders in question were also null and void on
                            877                               H
    878      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2008] 10 S.C.R.


A   account of the stated irregularities committed by the As-
    sessing Officer during the course of assessment proceed-
    ings.
          Dismissing the appeals, the Court
s        HELD:1.1. AU irregular or erroneous or even illegal
  orders cannot be held to be null and void as there is a
  fine distinction between the orders which are null and
  void and orders which are irregular, wrong or illegal.
  Where an authority making order lacks inherent jurisdic-
C tion, such order would be withqut jurisdiction, null, non
  est and void ab initio as defect of jurisdiction of an au-
  thority goes to the root of the matter and strikes at its very
  authority to pass any order and such a defect cannot be
  cured even by consent of the parties. Ho.wever, exercise
  of jurisdiction in a wrongful manner cannot result in a nul-
0
  lity- it is an illegality, capable of being cu~ed in a duly con-
  stituted legal proceedings. [Para 15] [885-D,E,F]
        1.2. A decree can be said to be without jurisdiction,
  and hence a nullity, if the Court passing the decree has
E usurped a jurisdiction which it did not have; a ·mere wrong
  exercise of jurisdiction does not result in a nullity. The
  lack of jurisdiction in the court passing the decree must
  be patent on its face in order to enable the executing court
  to take cognisance of such a nullity based on want of
F jurisdiction. A distinction exists between a decree passed
  by a court having no jurisdiction and consequently be-
  ing a nullity and not executable and a d~cree of the court
  which · is merely illegal or not passed in accordance with
  the procedure laid down by law. A dec~ee suffering .from
G illegality or irregularity of procedure, cannot be termed
  inexecutable. [Para 17] [886-B,C,D]
         Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors. AIR (1954)
    SC 340 and Rafique Bibi (Dead) By LRs. v. Sayed Waliuddin
    (2004) 1 sec 287 -relied on.
H
         MIS. DEEPAK AGRO FOODS v. STATE OF                879
                  RAJASTHAN & ORS.

      2. On a bare reading of Clause(b) of sub-section 8 of A
s.29 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, it becomes
abundantly clear that if an assessment order is set asid~
by an Appellate Authority, fresh assessment has to be
completed within a period of two years from the date of
communication of the order in appeal to the Assessing B
Authority a~d not from the date of order in appeal; as
pleaded by the appellant. In the presentcase, apart from
the fact that fresh assessment for the assessment
year 1995-96, framed pursuant to the order passed by
the appellate authority on 8th June, 2000, was well within .c
the prescribed time, even otherwise, the assessment or-
ders in question could not be held to be null and void on
account of the stated irregularities committed by the as-~
sessing officer during the course of assessment proceed-,
ings. Therefore, despite scathing observations by the High,
                                                             0
Court on the conduct of the assessing officer, it was a
case of an irregularity in assessment proceedings by the
officer, who was not bereft of authority to assess the ap-;
pellant. At best, it was an illegality, which defect was ca-
pable of and has been cured by the High Court by setting
aside the orders and by granting consequential relief. ' E
[Paras 12, 18] [884-F,G, 886-E,F,G,H]
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. :
4327-4328 of 2008

       From the Judgment and final Order dated 4.5.2004 and · F
15. 7 .2005 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jodehpur in D.R. Civil Special Appeal (Writs) No. 900 of 2002    1




and in D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 8 of 2005 respectively
    Raj iv Dutta, Abhishek Atrey and Ashw~,.,i Bhardwaj for the . G
Appellant.
      Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Archana n~1ari and .
                                                   •     I
Pratibha Jain for the Respondents.
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                     H
      880       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2008] 10 S.C.R.


A           D.K. JAIN, J.: Leave granted .
            2. These two sets of appeals, by special leave, are di-
    rected against the judgments and orders dated 4th May, 2004
    passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature
    for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writs)
8 · No:900/2002 and order dated 15'h July, 2005 passed in Re-
    view Petition No.8/2005 in Civil Special Appeal No.900/2002.
   By the impugned main orders, the Division Bench, while allow-
    ing the appeais, has set aside the assessment orders passed
    under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short '. the Act') in
C respect of assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 and has
    remanded the cases for fresh assessments by a new Assess-
    ing Officer, to be nominated by the Commissioner of Commer-
    cial Taxes, Rajasthan .
D         3. Though the appeals pertain to two assessment·years
    but ar~ inter-connected insofar as the decision in appeal per-
    taining to the assessment year 1996-97 will depend upon the
  · decision in appeal for the year 1995-96 because in its order for
    the latter year, the High Court has substantially relied on its or-
    der for the earlier year. Therefore, we propose to dispose of
E both the appeals by this common order. However, we shall re-
    fer to the facts emerging from the record for the assessment
    year 1995-96.
         4. The appellant, a proprietorship concern, is a dealer un-
F der the Act. For the assessment year 1995-96, an ex-parte
  assessment was framed on 19'h May, 1998. On appeal, the
  order of assessment was set aside by the Deputy Commis-
  sioner (Appeals) vide order dated B'h June, 2000 on the ground
  that ·proper opportunity of h~aring had not been granted to the
G appellant. In pursuance of the said order, a fresh notice was
  issued to the appellant for appearance on 12'h February, 2002.
  On the said date at the request of the appellant, the case was
  adjourned to 14th March, 2002 and then to 23rd March, 2002,
  when the appellant again sought time for collecting the requi-
H site detaHs/ information and he was granted three months' time
    t:>
            MIS. DEEPAK AGRO FOODS v. STATE OF                 881
                RAJASTHAN & ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.]

  for the said purpose. The case was fixed on 25th June, 2002 .      A
         5. According to the appellant, he appeared before the
  Assessing Officer on 25th June, 2002 and requested for some
  more time to furnish the bank statements etc. and the case was
  accordingly kept for 29th June, 2002 . However, on 29'h June,
  2002, when the appellant appeared before the Assessing Of".'       B
  ficer, he is said to have been told that the assessment orde ~
  had already been passed on 7th June, 2002.
         6. Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said or--
   der by preferring a writ petition. In the writ petition, it was al., c
   leged that the assessment order was anti-dated and in fact the
   same was passed on 291h June, 2002, by which ·date the period:
   of limitation was over. Interpolation in the order sheets dated
   23rd March, 2002 and 25th June, 2002 was alleged and it was ,
   also stated that the appellant was coerced to countersign the
   cuttings and tempering in the order sheets. However, the writ D ·
   petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in limine,
  jnter alia, on the ground that if the writ petitioner had any griev-
   ance that the proceedings had not been recorded correctly, he ·
   could have drawn the attention of the Presiding Officer towards ·
   such errors while the matter was still fresh to his mind. Accord- · E
   ingly, the learned Single Judge dir~cted the appellant to bring .
   the alleged anomalies to the notice of the Assessing Officer
   and simultaneously, if so ·advised, he could challenge the as- .
   sessment order by filing appeal before the Appellate Authority. ·
                                                                     F
         7. The correctness of the order passed by the learned ·
   Single Judge was questioned by the appellant before the Divi- ·
  ·sion ·Bench . On perusal of tne original records, particularly or- ·
   der sheets dated 23rd March, 2002 and 25th June, 2002, the
· learned Judges felt convinced that some ov.er-writings and in- . G
   terpolations in the order sheets had taken place. They observed
   thus:
        "In these circumstances, the assertions made by the
        assessee in his petition about tempering with the record
        of the proceedings dated 23.3.2002 and 25.6.2002 is          H
    882        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 10 S.C.R.


A         apparent, which makes the assessment order as an
          outcome of these mechanisations, by anti dating the
          proceedings and pass the order by anti dating it and in
          the allegation of assessee cannot be reasonably ruled
          out. The assertion of assessee stands fully corroborated
B         by the record of the proceedings which speaks eloquently
          about its tempering with. Obviously, the assessee would
          not be a party to it to suffer anti dated ex-pa rte order to his
          detriment. It can reasonably be attributed to the Assessing
          Officer, who had chosen this path for the reasons best
c         known to him.
          More so the Assessing Officer having been impleaded as
          party respondent by name has not chosen to appeal and
          answer the assertions. It is a case in which it can very well
          be said that the record speaks for itself. In the aforesaid
D         circumstances, an order alleged to have been passed on
          7.6.2002 in the absence of the assessee by tempering
                                                                             +z
          with the record of the proceedings dated 23.3.2002 and
          25.6.2002 cannot be sustained."
           The Division Bench strongly felt that it was a fit case in
E   which arm of the Court in exErcise of its extraordinary jurisdic-
    tion must reach to remedy the breach of principles of natural
    justice, arising from breach of code of conduct, by officer acting
    against all canons of fair play and transparency in discharging
    its duties as statutory functionary. Accordingly, as stated supra,
F   the appeal was allowed; assessment order dated 7th June, 2002
    was set aside and demands raised consequent thereto were
    quashed, with a direction to the Commissioner of Commercial
    Taxes, Rajasthan to nominate another Assessing Officer, not
    below the rank of a Senior Commercial Taxes Officer, for mak-
G   ing fresh assessment. The Division Bench directed the appel-
    lant to appear before such nominated authority on 151 of July,
    2004 and also that the assessment period would be counted                + ..___
    thereafter by 31 51 August, 2004. As regards assessment year
    1996-97, though there was no specific allegation of interpola-
H   tion in the records, like in the previous year, yet the High Court
              M/S. DEEPAK AGRO FOODS v. STATE OF                   883   I



                  RAJASTHAN & ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.]

     felt that since the same officer had framed the assessment an.d         A
     the proceedings for this year were being taken up simulta-
     neously, these also did not go out of the cloud of suspicion sur-
     rounding the assessing officer. The learned Judges were also
     of the view that notice fixing the hearing on 8th June, 2002 had
     not been properly served. Accordingly, assessment order for
-·   this year as well was set aside with similar directions as were
                                                                             B

     given in respect of the assessment year 1995-96. Being dis-
     satisfied with the direction for fresh assessments, these appeals
     have been preferred by the dealer.
           8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, c
     pursuant to the issue of notice, averments in the petition in re-
     gard to the interpolation of records are denied. It is stated that
     the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on
     8th June, 2000, setting aside the assessment order dated 19th
     March, 1998 was received by the Assessing Officer only on 13th D
     July, 2000 and, therefore, the assessment order passed on 7th
     June, 2002 was within time. It is pleaded that even if it is as-
     sumed that the assessment order had been actually passed on
     29th June, 2002, as alleged by the appellant, and had been anti-
     dated as 7th June, 2002, to save limitation, still the same was E
     within the period of limitation, which was to expire on 12th July,
     2002. Though a rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of
     the appellant but the said assertion has not been controverted.
            9. Shri Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing on
     behalf of the appellant, submitted that in the light of its afore- F
     extracted observations and a clear finding that the assessment
     order for the assessment year 1995-96 had been anti-dated,
     the order was null and void. It was urged that assessment pro-
     ceedings after the expiry of the period of limitation being a nul-
     lity in law, the High Court should have annulled the assessment G
     and there was no question of a fresh assessment. Thus,' the
+    nub of the grievance of the appellant is that in remanding the
     matter back to the Assessing Officer, the High Court has not

~    only extended the statutory period prescribed for completion of
     assessment, it has also conferred jurisdiction upon the Assess- H
    884       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2008] 10 S.C.R.
                                                                         +
A   ing Officer, which he otherwise lacked on the expiry of the said
    period.
         10. Per contra, Shri Sushi! Kumar Jain, learned counsel
    appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that since
    assessments in respect of both the assessment years had been
B   completed within time, the impugned directions are in order.         )-
    Learned counsel also pointed out that pursuant to and in fur-
    therance of the orders passed by the High Court, fresh assess-
    ments in respect of both the assessment years have already
    been completed.
c
         11. Having giv~n anxious ·consideration to the rival stands,
    we are satisfied that the appeal is misconceived and is liable
    to be dismissed.
         12. Chapter IV of the Act lays down the proGedure for pay-
D   ment of tax, filing of returns and assessments. Section 29 pre-      +
    scribes the procedure and time limits for completion of assess-
    ment. Clause (b) of sub-section 8 of Section 29, relevant for
    our purpose, reads as follows:
          "(8)(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-clause
E         (a), where an assessment order is passed in consequence
          of or to give effect to, any order of an appellate authority
          or the Tribunal or a competent court, it shall be completed
          within two years of the communication of such order to the
          assessing authority; however,.the Commissioner may·for
F         reasons to be recorded in writing, extend in any particular
          case, such time limit by a period notexceeding six months."
        On a bare reading of the provision, it becomes abundantly
  clear that if an assessment order is set aside by an Appellate
G Authority, fresh assessment has to be completed within a pe-
  riod of two years from the date of comf!1unication of the order
  in appeal to the Assessing AuthoritY ·and not from the date of
  order in appeal; as is· pleaded by the appellant.
                                                                         +


H
         13. As afore-stated, in the counter-affidavit as well as in
    the written submissions filed on behalf of the _respondents, it is   r
                        MIS. DEEPAK AGRO FOODS v. STATE OF                    885
          +                 RAJASTHAN & ORS. [D.K JAIN, J.] ·

              stated that the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 8th June,       A
              2000, was received by the Assessing Authority on 13th July, 2000
              and, therefore, fresh assessment, pursuant to the said order, could
              be completed by f2th July, 2002 (ignoring further period of six
              months, which could be extended by the Commissioner). That
      -f      being so, even if it is assumed that the assessment order, for the      B
              assessment year 1995-96, had, in fact, been passed on 29th June,
              2002, as alleged by the appellant, it was still very much within the
              time limit prescribed under the afore-noted provision i.e. 12th July,
              2002.-' We are, therefore, unable to accept the stand of the ap-
              pellant that the assessment having been made after the expiry of        c
              the time limit, it was null and void and should have been annulled.
                    14. Having come to the above conclusion, the next ques-
              tion which requires consideration is whether in the light of the
              observations of the Division Bench in the afore-extracted para-
              graph on the irregularities as also the conduct of the assessing        D
              officer, the assessment orders could be said to be null and void,
              as pleaded on behalf of the appellants?
                    15. All irregular or erroneous or even illegal orders cannot
              be held to be null and void as there is a fine distinction between
              the orders which are null and void and orders which are irregu- E
              lar, wrong or illegal. Where an authority making order lacks
              inherent jurisdiction, such order would be without jurisdiction,
              null, non est and _void ab initio as defect of jurisdiction of an
              authority goes to the root of the matter and strikes at its very.
__)
              authority to pass any order and such a defect cannot be cured F
              even by consent of th_e parties. (See: Kiran Singh & Ors. Vs.
              Chaman Paswan & Ors. 1 ). However, exercise of jurisdiction in
              a wrongful manner cannot result in a nullity - it is an illegaMy,
              capable of being cured in a duly constituted legal proceedings.
                                                                                 G
                    16. Proceedings for assessment under a fiscal statute are
 ~            not in the nature of judicial proceedings, like proceedings in a
              suit inasmuch as the assessing officer does not adjudicate on
              a /is between an assessee and the State and, therefore, the
              law on the issue laid down under the civil law may not stricto
                                                                                 H
      I




          \
    886       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 10 S.C.R.
                                                                          +
A   sensu apply to assessment proceedings. Nevertheless, in or-
    der to appreciate the distinction between a "null and void" or-
    der and an "illegal or irregular" order, it would be profitable to
    notice a few decisions of this Court on the point.
         17. In Rafique Bibi (Dead) By LRs. Vs. Sayed Waliuddin
B (Dead) By LRs. & Ors. 2 , explaining the distinction between "null
  and void decree" and "illegal decree", this Court has said that
  a decree can be said to be without jurisdiction, and hence a
  nullity, if the Court passing the decree has usurped a jurisdic-
  tion which it did not have; a mere wrong exercise of jurisdiction
c does not result in a nullity. The lack of jurisdiction in the court
  passing the decree must be patent on its face in order to en-
  able the executing court to take cognisance of such a nullity
  based on want of jurisdiction. The Court further held that a dis-
  tinction exists between a decree passed by a court having no
D jurisdiction and consequently being a nullity and not executable
  and a decree of the court which is merely illegal or not passed
  in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. A decree
  suffering from illegality or irregularity of procedure, cannot be
  termed inexecutable.
E
         18. In view of the above, in the present case, apart from
    the fact that on a plain reading of Section 29(8)(b) of the Act, it
    is manifestly clear that fresh assessment for the assessment
    year 1995-96, framed pursuant to the order passed by the ap-
    pellate authority on 8th June, 2000, was well within the prescribed
F time, even otherwise, in the light of the afore-stated settled law,
    the assessments orders in question could not be held to be null
    and void on account of the stated irregularities committed by
    the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceed-
    ings. In our opinion, therefore, despite scathing observations
G by the Division Bench on the conduct of the assessing officer, it
    was a case of an irregularity in assessment proceedings by the
    officer, who was not bereft of authority to assess the app~llant.         +
    At best, it was an illegality, which defect was capable of and
    has been cured by the High Court by setting aside the orders
1-1 and by granting consequential relief.


                                                                          (
          M/S. DEEPAK AGRO FOODS v. STATE OF                   887
              RAJASTHAN & ORS. [D.K. JAIN, J.]

      19. In the conspectus of the circumstances aforesaid, we        A
do not find any infirmity in the impugned directions given by the
Division Bench of the High Court warranting interference in the
exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The appeals are devoid of any merit and are dismissed ac-
cordingly with costs throughout.                                      B
B.B.B.                                      Appeals dismissed.