1957 (8) TMI 23 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rule 13 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939.
2. Compliance with the condition laid down in sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939.
3. Authority and appointment of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rule 13 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939:
The primary question referred to the Full Bench was whether Rule 13 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1939, is invalid due to non-compliance with the condition laid down in sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Act. The petitioner, a dealer in groceries and pulses, contested the validity of Rule 13 on the grounds that it was not pre-published as required by law. The Government Pleader admitted that there was no pre-publication of the amendment of Rule 13 in 1947, 1951, and 1953. The court concluded that the amendments to Rule 13 were invalid due to non-compliance with the pre-publication requirement stipulated in section 19(4) of the Act.

2. Compliance with the Condition Laid Down in Sub-section (4) of Section 19 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939:
The court examined whether the amendments to Rule 13 complied with the condition of previous publication for a period of not less than four weeks as required by section 19(4) of the Act. It was admitted that the original rules made in 1939 complied with this provision. However, subsequent amendments in 1947, 1951, and 1953 did not follow the required pre-publication procedure. The court emphasized that compliance with the pre-publication condition is essential for the validity of the rules. The failure to comply with this condition rendered the amendments to Rule 13 invalid.

3. Authority and Appointment of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers:
The petitioner also challenged the validity of the appointment of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer who made the assessment. The contention was that the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was not validly appointed under the Act. The court referred to section 2-B, which authorizes the State Government to appoint Deputy Commissioners of Commercial Taxes and Commercial Tax Officers. The court clarified that the Assistant Commercial Tax Officers were authorized by the Government to exercise the powers of an assessing authority under section 2(a-2) of the Act. The Government's notification authorized the Deputy Commissioner to appoint Assistant Commercial Tax Officers to assist in administrative functions. Therefore, the court found that the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was legally authorized to make the assessment.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench held that the amendments to Rule 13 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules in 1947, 1951, and 1953 were invalid due to non-compliance with the pre-publication requirement. The original rules made in 1939 were valid as they complied with the condition of previous publication. The court also upheld the validity of the appointment of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, stating that the Government had the authority to authorize such appointments under section 2(a-2) of the Act. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.