9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (9) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to deal with the said revision petition. The contention of the petitioner before us rests on the provisions of Act 25 of 1957 and of Act 24 of 1957. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner it would be necessary to refer to the material provisions of those two Acts. Sub-section (1) of section 40 of Act 25 of 1957 repealed, among others, the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1948 (Mysore Act 46 of 1948). The said sub-section however contained a proviso which inter alia provides that the said repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired or incurred under the enactments repealed, or any investigation, legal proceedings or remedy in respect of such right, privilege, obligation, liability, etc., and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if this Act had not been passed. Sub-section (2) of section 40 inter alia provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) for the purpose of giving effect to the said proviso, the State Government may be notification make such provision as appears to it to be necessary or exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Mysore Board of Revenue stood transferred to the Tribunal and the Mysore Board of Revenue could not transfer the said matters to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. At this stage I should mention that by a notification issued by the State Government dated 8th December, 1957, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was specified as the authority for exercising the powers of revision exercisable under the Sales Tax Act of 1948 (Mysore Act 46 of 1948). The learned Advocate contended before us that before the notification was issued by the Government, Act 24 of 1957 had already come into operation and by virtue of section 11 of Act 24 of 1957 the revision petition which was then pending before the Mysore Board of Revenue stood transferred to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. He urged that the Government had no powers thereafter to specify the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as the authority to deal with the petition. He also urged that the Board of Revenue could not also transfer the same to the said Commissioner of Commercial Taxes particularly because at the date when the said transfer was ordered the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was not specified under sub-section (2) of sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty on 8th December, 1957, and that is the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Therefore, it is the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who would be entitled to deal with such revision petition, instead of the Board of Revenue. The question which then arises is whether or not the provisions of Act 24 of 1957 made any difference in this result. The learned Advocate, as I have already stated, strenuously argued before us that by virtue of section 11 of Act 24 of 1957 all matters which were pending at the date of commencement of that Act before the Mysore Board of Revenue stood transferred to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and this revision petition being also pending at the said date, must also be held to have stood transferred to the said Tribunal. That being so, the learned Advocate contended, there was no question of the matter going to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for the purpose of disposal. It should be noted that the order of specification by which the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was authorised to deal with such matters came into existence only on 8th December, 1957, and before that on 1st December, 1957, Act 24 of 1957 had come into existence. The learned Ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being Act 46 of 1948. But the proviso itself is subject to sub-section (2) of section 40 of Act 25 of 1957. The Government can under the said sub-section specify the authority which would be competent to deal with such matters. It, therefore, follows that the power of the Revenue Tribunal to deal with such matters is always subject to Government specifying an authority which would be competent to deal with the same. Till the Government did not specify the authority under sub-section (2) of section 40 it would be the Board of Revenue and after the passing of Act 24 of 1957 the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal would, by virtue of the said proviso, be competent to deal with the said proceedings. But after the State Government specified the authority under sub-section (2) of section 40, the proviso stood superseded to the extent namely that instead of the authority who would be entitled to act under the said proviso, that is to say the authority who would have acted if Act 25 of 1957 had not come into force, the authority specified by the Government would alone be able to deal with such matters. In this case the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes being specified by Government would be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld again be made to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 40 of Act 25 of 1957. Under that provision the Government can specify the authority which would be competent to exercise the functions exercisable under the repealed Acts including the Mysore Sales Tax Act of 1948. The power of revision is one of the powers which was conferred upon the Board of Revenue by the Sales Tax Act of 1948 read with the Mysore Board of Revenue Act, 1955. That power by virtue of the provisions of section 11 of of Act 24 of 1957 is no longer available to the Board. The State Government in such circumstances, in my opinion, can specify the authority which would be entitled to exercise the said powers which are saved by the proviso to subsection (1) of section 40 of Act 25 of 1957. In my opinion, the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the power of the Government to act under sub-section (2) was completely gone because of the provisions of section 11 of Act 24 of 1957 cannot be accepted as sound. Before concluding my judgment on this part of the case I should mention that I entertain considerable doubt as to whether or not on a proper reading of the provisions of sections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er to enable the counsel to be ready with this point. But neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present to argue this point on the said adjourned date. We are informed by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner before us that in support of his petition a memo containing the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner was sent to the Commissioner. That may be so, but the fact remains that neither the petitioner ner his counsel was present before the Commissioner to argue this case before him on the date when it was heard. I am of the opinion that this contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner must fail. I hold that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had jurisdiction to deal with this revision petition. The next contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner was that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 40 were ultra vires the powers of the Legislature in view of the fact that the Legislature by the said provision delegated to the State Government its essential legislative function. The learned Advocate contended that the determination of the authority which would be competent to deal with the matters under the Act is essentially a leg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
