2017 (12) TMI 887 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Jurisdiction - power of Joint Commissioner (Executive) - whether the said Joint Commissioner (Executive) was not empowered or authorised to exercise the revisional powers as comprised in Section 10-B? - Held that - A careful reading of Section 10-B would clearly establish that initially the provision empowered the Commissioner or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner to exercise powers of revision. The words Deputy Commissioner was later on amended and substituted by the words Joint Commissioner - Essentially therefore, it recognised two classes of officers who could possibly exercise the powers of revision. The first class of course was the Commissioner while the second class was to comprise of such other officers not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner /Joint Commissioner as may have been authorised in this behalf by the State Government by notification. The recognition of a revisional power vesting in the Commissioner is not an issue on which there can possibly be any doubt. The fact that the Commissioner did not require a separate authorisation by the State Government or a notification of such authorization is evident from a plain construct of Section 10-B. Prior to the amendment of Section 2(b), the only difference in position was that the words employed were Joint Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner . Once Section 2(b) mandates the recognition and inclusion of a Joint Commissioner in the expression Commissioner , there is, in the opinion and considered view of this Court, no requirement of a separate authorisation or notification of conferment of such authority. Since section 10-B always recognized and conferred powers upon a Commissioner all classes of officers and authorities who fell within the ambit of the expression Commissioner would have to necessarily be recognized as being statutorily empowered and clothed with the jurisdiction to exercise the powers of revision - Undisputedly, a Joint Commissioner stood included in the expression Commissioner as per section 2 (b). The challenge to the authority of the Joint Commissioner to exercise powers conferred by Section 10-B is misconceived and is liable to be negatived. - revision dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of orders passed by Joint Commissioner (Executive) under Section 10-B of U.P. Trade Tax Act 1948.

Analysis:
The judgment addressed the issue of the validity of orders passed by the Joint Commissioner (Executive) under Section 10-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act 1948. The contention raised was that the Joint Commissioner was not authorized to exercise revisional powers as per Section 10-B. The Court examined the evolution of Section 10-B through various amendments, including the 2003 Amendment which substituted "Deputy Commissioner" with "Joint Commissioner." It was argued that the Joint Commissioner's authority was not valid due to lack of specific notification, as only Deputy Commissioners (Executive) were explicitly authorized in a 1982 notification. However, the Tribunal accepted that the 2003 Amendment implicitly authorized Joint Commissioners to exercise these powers without a separate notification.

The Court analyzed the statutory provisions and concluded that the Commissioner and officers not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner/Joint Commissioner were empowered to exercise revisional powers under Section 10-B. The definition of "Commissioner" under Section 2(b) included a Joint Commissioner, eliminating the need for separate authorization. The Court emphasized that the statutory recognition of a Joint Commissioner within the definition of "Commissioner" conferred statutory authority to exercise revisional powers. Therefore, the challenge to the Joint Commissioner's authority to exercise powers under Section 10-B was deemed misconceived and dismissed.

Regarding the argument for specific conferment of authority on a particular class of Joint Commissioners, the Court held that Section 2(b) did not distinguish between categories of Joint Commissioners. It clarified that all Joint Commissioners fell under the definition of "Commissioner," granting them the authority to exercise revisional powers. The Court rejected the notion that the Rules framed under the Act could override the statutory provision of Section 10-B. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revisions, upholding the Joint Commissioner's authority to exercise powers under Section 10-B.

In conclusion, the judgment affirmed the validity of orders passed by the Joint Commissioner (Executive) under Section 10-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act 1948, emphasizing the statutory empowerment of Joint Commissioners within the definition of "Commissioner" to exercise revisional powers without the need for separate authorization.