1986 (6) TMI 238 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of revenue recovery proceedings in Tamil Nadu for sales tax arrears from Maharashtra.
2. Delegation of power under the Revenue Recovery Act for issuance of recovery certificate.
3. Scope of delegation under sections 3 and 5 of the Act.
4. Interpretation of the duty of delegation under section 3(2) of the Act.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged revenue recovery proceedings in Tamil Nadu for sales tax arrears from Maharashtra. The contention was that such proceedings cannot be initiated in Tamil Nadu for dues from another state. The court referred to a previous case and held that the contention was not sustainable based on precedent.

2. The issue of delegation of power under the Revenue Recovery Act was raised. The petitioner argued that the certificate for recovery was issued by an Assistant Commissioner in Bombay City Division, not the Collector, as required by the Act. The court analyzed sections 3 and 5 of the Act, noting that the power of delegation extends to sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue by any public officer, not just the Collector. The distinction sought by the petitioner was not supported by the language of the Act or any precedent.

3. The court further examined the scope of delegation under sections 3 and 5 of the Act. It emphasized that the language in section 5 allows for delegation under the provisions of section 3, even for sums recoverable by public officers other than the Collector. No authority was cited to support a different interpretation, leading the court to reject this contention as well.

4. Lastly, the petitioner argued that delegation under section 3(2) should be limited to signing the certificate, not the entire process. The court disagreed, stating that delegation encompasses the duty of making and signing the certificate, not just signing a pre-made certificate. The court found this argument to be against the purpose of the provision of delegation and dismissed it.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the contentions raised were not sustained. The petition failed on all counts, and no costs were awarded.