9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (1) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conscionable justice may be administered by quashing the orders and also to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue commanding the respondents not to proceed on the basis of the orders and/or notice in Form VI dated 22nd February, 1964. The order dated 30th April, 1965, is to be found in annexure H to the petition. The order was made on a petition for revision under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, of the order dated 26th November, 1964, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes rejecting the petition of objection against the propriety of the Commercial Tax Officer in the matter of determination of the dealer's liability to pay tax under section 4(2) of the Act with effect on and from 15, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act was issued. On 12th June, 1964, the petitioners filed a petition for revision of the order dated 13th February, 1964. On 9th July, 1964, the petitioners produced books before the Commercial Tax Officer. On 4th November, 1964, the petitioners' application for revision of the order dated 13th February, 1964, was rejected as time-barred. On 25th November, 1964, the petitioners' application dated 2nd September, 1964, for revision of the order dated 9th July, 1964, was rejected. On 20th January, 1965, the petitioners made application for revision of the orders dated 4th November, 1964, and 26th November, 1964, and those petitions were rejected by the order dated 30th April, 1965. The petitioners impeached the order dated 30th April, 1965, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of a dealer is determined, and rules 4 and 6 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act deal with applications for certificate of registration and rule 71 shows the powers which the Commissioner can delegate or has delegated and it will appear that the power under section 4(2) has not been delegated and, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass any order. Under section 20 of the Act it will appear that any dealer has a right to appeal against any assessment within sixty days. In the present case there was an assessment made. Under section 3 and section 3A it will appear as to who the taxing authorities are. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and the Additional Commissioner or Additional Commissioners of Commercial T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the higher authorities, it is the order of the higher authority which is the operative order. In the East India Commercial Company case(1), the order was passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, and an appeal was taken to the Central Board of Revenue. The Central Board of Revenue was situated at Delhi. The question arose as to whether any writ could issue against the Central Board of Revenue which was located outside the jurisdiction of the Court and, if no writ could issue against the Central Board of Revenue whether any writ could be issued against the authority which passed the original order. In the East India Commercial Company case(1963) 1 S.C.A. 348., it was held that the appellate order was the operative order after the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en preferred, the appellate order would be operative. On the other hand, the departmental orders passed at different stages remain effective by virtue of their own existence if they are not subject-matter of appeals. In the present case the order dated 13th February, 1964, was not taken upon appeal. Applications were made for revision. The orders passed upon such applications did not touch the order dated 13th February, 1964. The order dated 13th February, 1964, has not been modified, reversed or confirmed. In other words, the orders passed on revision, as I have already indicated, were rejected as they were barred by time. The result is that the order dated 13th February, 1964, remains and remains effective by propriety of its own vigour. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o lack of delegation is not one of the grounds taken in the petition and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to canvass this at all. Assuming, this could be gone into, the fallacy is, as I have already indicated, to equate statutory law with the power of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It was contended that there was violation of Article 265 of the Constitution. Article 265 of the Constitution enacts that no tax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law. I am unable to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioners that there is any violation of Article 265. The assessment is made in accordance with the provisions of the statute. The petitioners invited the jurisdiction of the authority under the Bengal F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
