1958 (9) TMI 76 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to deal with the revision petition.
2. Validity of the transfer of the revision petition by the Mysore Board of Revenue.
3. Ultra vires contention regarding sub-section (2) of section 40 of Act 25 of 1957.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes:
The petitioner contended that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had no jurisdiction to deal with the revision petition. The argument was based on the provisions of Act 25 of 1957 and Act 24 of 1957. Sub-section (1) of section 40 of Act 25 of 1957 repealed the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948, but included a proviso that preserved any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired under the repealed enactments. Sub-section (2) of section 40 allowed the State Government to specify an authority to exercise functions under the repealed enactments. Section 4 of Act 24 of 1957 transferred appellate and revisional powers from the Mysore Board of Revenue to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. Section 11 transferred pending proceedings to the Tribunal. The petitioner argued that the revision petition should have been transferred to the Tribunal, not the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.

The court held that the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 40 kept alive the right to continue legal proceedings as if Act 25 of 1957 had not been passed. Therefore, the Mysore Board of Revenue was initially competent to deal with the revision petition. However, the State Government specified the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as the authority on 8th December 1957, under sub-section (2) of section 40, making the Commissioner the competent authority to deal with the revision petition. The court concluded that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had jurisdiction to deal with the revision petition.

2. Validity of the Transfer of the Revision Petition:
The petitioner argued that the Mysore Board of Revenue could not transfer the revision petition to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes because the Commissioner was not specified as the competent authority at the time of transfer. The court noted that the transfer occurred on 12th October 1957, before the Commissioner was specified as the authority on 8th December 1957. However, the court held that the critical factor was whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction at the time of dealing with the matter, which he did on 2nd April 1958. The court dismissed the petitioner's contention as a mere technical objection, stating that the Commissioner had jurisdiction when he dealt with the revision petition, regardless of how the matter came before him.

3. Ultra Vires Contention Regarding Sub-section (2) of Section 40:
The petitioner contended that sub-section (2) of section 40 was ultra vires the powers of the Legislature as it delegated essential legislative functions to the State Government. The petitioner relied on a decision of the Assam High Court, which was later overruled by the Supreme Court. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Assam State v. Sristikar, which held that the delegation of functions to specify the authority did not constitute excessive delegation of legislative power. The court concluded that there was sufficient indication in the Act regarding the type of persons to be appointed to discharge such duties, and therefore, the delegation was valid. The court dismissed this contention as well.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had jurisdiction to deal with the revision petition, the transfer of the revision petition by the Mysore Board of Revenue was valid, and sub-section (2) of section 40 of Act 25 of 1957 was not ultra vires the powers of the Legislature. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

← Previous Next →