9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (11) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the said sum either in whole or in part. The Certificate Officer by an order dated 13th January, 1950, rejected the applicant's petition. Thereupon the applicant filed an appeal to the Collector which was registered as Certificate Appeal No. 134 of 1950-51. While the said certificate appeal was pending, the Sales Tax Officer issued another requisition for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,898-11-0 from the applicant as arrear sales tax for the two quarters from 30th June, 1948, to 31st December, 1948. The Certificate Officer started another case No. 808-M of 1950-51 on the basis of this requisition and issued the usual notice under Section 7 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. In respect of this certificate case also the applicant filed a petition under Sec- tion 9 of that Act denying his liability to pay either the whole, or in any case, a portion of the sum. The Certificate Officer rejected this petition also by an order dated 28th March, 1951. Thereupon the applicant preferred an appeal (Certificate Appeal No. 1 of 1951-52) against that order before the Collector. The two certificate appeals were heard analogously by the Additional Collector on 30th May, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a complete machinery for the assessment and the collection of the sales tax and also for the investigation of those matters upon which the jurisdiction of the Sales Tax Officer to make the assessment depends. Section 12 deals with the mode of assessment. Section 13 deals with the recovery of tax and penalty. Clause (c) of sub-section (4) of that section says that after making an assessment the Collector shall issue a notice to the dealer for payment of the tax assessed. Section 20 confers jurisdiction on the Sales Tax Officer to determine all matters which are incidental to the assessment such as whether the assessee is a "dealer" within the meaning of the Act or whether a particular transaction is a "sale" or "contract". Section 22 expressly bars the jurisdiction of any Court to question an assessment made or an order passed under that Act. Section 23, however, provides for an appeal and also for a revision petition to the prescribed authority and Section 24 empowers the High Court to direct the statement of a case where a question of law is involved. The petitioner did not avail himself of the remedies provided in those sections and his explanation is that he was unaware of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Legislature and the Sales Tax Act being a later special enactment must necessarily pre- vail even if there is any inconsistency between the two Acts. But I find no inconsistency at all in view of Section 64 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act which expressly says that powers given under that Act shall be deemed to be in addition to, and not in derogation from, any powers conferred by any other Act for the recovery of a public demand. Therefore the power conferred on a Certificate Officer by Section 10 of the Bihar and Orissa Public De- mands Recovery Act to determine whether the applicant certificate debtor is liable for the whole or any part of the amount for which the certificate was signed must be deemed to be controlled by Section 22 of the Sales Tax Act and he has no jurisdiction whatsoever to consider the legality or correctness of the assessment. Mr. Misra, however, contended that the bar of Section 22 of the Sales Tax Act would come into operation only when a valid assess- ment was made under that Act and where the assessment was made without issuing the notices required by Sections 12 and 13 of that Act there was no valid assessment at all. The correctnes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given to the decision of the Sales Tax Officer (subject of course to appeal, revision etc., provided in the Sales Tax Act itself) would apply not only to the assessment actually made by him but also to the decisions on the preliminary questions such as whether the applicant was a "dealer" and the trans- action was a "sale" on which his further exercise of jurisdiction of making the assessment depends. This has been clearly emphasised in Section 22 which applies not only to assessment made under the Act but also to the orders passed thereunder. Apart from the terms of Section 22, the following principles laid down by Lord Esher in The Queen v. The Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax(1), and followed in a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Brij Raj Krishna v. Shaw and Bros.(2), are quite apt in this case: "When an inferior Court or tribunal or body, which has to exer- cise the power of deciding facts, is first established by Act of Parlia- ment, the Legislature has to consider what powers it will give that tribunal or body. It may in effect say that, if a certain state of facts exists and is shown to such tribunal or body before it proceeds to do certa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he powers to the Collector to decide whether or not a person is a dealer for the purpose of the Act. Section 22 bars the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of an order of the Collector deciding that a particular person is a dealer within the meaning of the Act and levying assessment on him. It is clear therefore that neither the Certificate Officer nor this Court has any power to go into that question both on account of the statutory provisions as also on the oft-quoted principle laid down in The Queen v. The Commissioners for the Special Purposes of the Income Tax(1), referred to in my learned brother's judgment. Our attention has been drawn to some clauses in the printed con- tract between the petitioner and the Government relating to the work and it is possible that the petitioner may have a real grievance as to the correctness of the decision of the Sales Tax Officer that he is a dealer. But his remedy was only that provided in the Act and no other. The Privy Council has pointed out in Secretary of State v. Mask Co.(2), that "where a statute creates a liability not existing at common law and gives also a particular remedy for enforcing it with respect to that class, it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
