1999 (2) TMI 642 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order passed by the Judicial Member of the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal regarding the authorization of an officer to sign the memorandum of appeal on behalf of the State.

Analysis:
The petitioner contended that the officer who signed the memorandum of appeal was not competent as per Rule 52(1)(b) of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1947, which required the Commissioner of Sales Tax or an authorized officer to sign and verify such documents. The petitioner argued that only an officer of the Finance Department could sign the memorandum. However, a previous court decision clarified that the State Representative, an officer of the Commercial Tax Department under the Commissioner's control, could sign and verify the memorandum if authorized. This interpretation was based on rules 2(a)(ii), 2(lll), and 52(1)(b) read together, allowing the Commissioner to authorize officers of the Sales Tax Department to sign such documents.

To determine the correctness of the petitioner's stand, relevant sections of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 were examined. Section 17 allowed the Commissioner to delegate powers and duties to appointed persons, while Section 23(3)(a) provided for appeals to be filed with the Tribunal by dissatisfied dealers or the State Government. Section 29(2)(r) empowered the State Government to make rules regarding appeals against assessments or penalties. Rule 52(1)(b) was framed under this authority, allowing the Commissioner to authorize officers to sign and verify appeals on behalf of the State Government.

The Court noted that the expression "such other officer" in Rule 52 was broad and not restrictive, enabling the Commissioner to authorize officers under his administrative control to sign and verify appeals. An office order dated May 5, 1994, authorized the officer in question to sign, verify, and file appeals before the Tribunal. Based on this authorization and the interpretation of relevant laws and rules, the Court declined to entertain the writ application, disposing of it without costs. Both judges agreed on the decision, and the writ application was accordingly disposed of.