1980 (7) TMI 250 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Commercial Tax Officer after order issued by Commissioner under section 3-B(4) of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue: Jurisdiction of Commercial Tax Officer after order issued by Commissioner under section 3-B(4) of the Act

The case involved a revision petition under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, questioning the validity of proceedings initiated by the Commercial Tax Officer after being divested of power by the Commissioner under section 3-B(4) of the Act. The main question was whether the Commercial Tax Officer had the authority to commence proceedings under section 12-A of the Act after the power was vested in the Assistant Commissioner.

The Court examined the provisions of section 3-B(4) of the Act, which empowered the Commissioner to direct that the powers of the Commercial Tax Officer be exercised by the Assistant Commissioner in specified cases. The Court emphasized that once such an order was issued, all references to the Commercial Tax Officer in the Act were deemed to refer to the Assistant Commissioner. The Court held that after the Commissioner's order on 20th December, 1972, the Commercial Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 12-A, as the power had been transferred to the Assistant Commissioner.

The petitioner contended that the initiation of proceedings by the Commercial Tax Officer was without jurisdiction, citing the order issued by the Commissioner under section 3-B(4) of the Act. The Court agreed with the petitioner's argument, stating that the Commercial Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to commence or complete the proceedings under section 12-A. The Court noted the failure of departmental officers to rectify the situation despite the clear lack of authority. Consequently, the Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the Tribunal's decision upholding the commencement of proceedings under section 12-A and directing the matter to be transferred to the Assistant Commissioner.

In conclusion, the Court held that the initiation of proceedings by the Commercial Tax Officer after being divested of power by the Commissioner was without authority of law, emphasizing the importance of jurisdiction and proper authority in tax assessment proceedings.