1970 (12) TMI 63 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved: Competency of State Representative to sign and verify memoranda of appeals, maintainability of second appeals, and appropriateness of writ application given the existence of an alternative remedy.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency of State Representative to Sign and Verify Memoranda of Appeals:
The primary issue revolves around whether the State Representative had the authority to sign and verify the memoranda of appeals. The Tribunal initially found that Sri L.C. Sahu, the State Representative, lacked such authority, rendering the appeals incompetent. However, this was factually incorrect as the Commissioner had indeed authorized the filing of second appeals. The judgment references Section 3 and Section 17 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, alongside Rule 52(1)(b) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947. Section 3 outlines the appointment of taxing authorities, including the Commissioner, who can delegate powers under Section 17. Rule 52(1)(b) specifies that a memorandum of appeal can be signed and verified by the Commissioner or an authorized officer. The court concluded that the State Representative, being under the administrative control of the Commissioner, falls within the ambit of "such other officer" and thus was competent to sign and verify the appeals, especially given the authorization by the Commissioner through Notification No. 6204-CT-SM-13/63-C.T. dated 2nd April 1963.

2. Maintainability of Second Appeals:
The judgment also addressed whether the second appeals were maintainable. The Tribunal's decision that the appeals were filed on the responsibility of the State Representative without the Commissioner's order was found to be an error of record. The court clarified that the Commissioner's order dated 29th November 1963, approving the filing of second appeals, was not contested and thus valid. Consequently, the second appeals were maintainable.

3. Appropriateness of Writ Application Given the Existence of an Alternative Remedy:
The opposing party argued that the writ application was not maintainable since the State had filed Reference Applications before the Tribunal, providing an alternative remedy. The court held that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It emphasized that the Tribunal committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record by not exercising its jurisdiction to hear the appeals on merits. The court decided that dismissing the writ application would lead to protracted litigation, and it was in the interest of justice to expedite the disposal of the appeals.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the Tribunal's order dated 8th June 1970, directed that the fifteen second appeals be deemed pending, and ordered their disposal within three months. The writ application was allowed, with parties bearing their own costs.