Continuing delegation and writ standing determine validity of sales tax assessments after state reorganisation.

A writ challenge to a notification withdrawing access to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal failed where no appeal had been filed and the petitioner was not yet actually aggrieved. The limitation objection to the assessments was also rejected because it had not been raised before the assessing authority and could not be reopened in writ proceedings without a proper factual basis. On jurisdiction, a delegation of taxing power under the earlier sales tax law continued after State reorganisation by virtue of the statutory saving provision, and the continuing notification remained effective until altered by competent authority. The Commercial Tax Officer's assessments were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could challenge the Government notification withdrawing the right of appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal when no appeal had been filed against the assessment order. (ii) Whether the assessments were barred by limitation and could be attacked in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (iii) Whether the Commercial Tax Officer had jurisdiction to make the impugned assessments after the States Reorganisation Act, having regard to the delegation made under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could challenge the Government notification withdrawing the right of appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal when no appeal had been filed against the assessment order.

Analysis: The right to approach the Tribunal would arise only after an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner in the statutory hierarchy. Since the petitioner had not pursued the appellate remedy and the notification did not take away any right already exercised by him, he could not claim to be aggrieved by it.

Conclusion: The challenge to the notification was not maintainable and failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessments were barred by limitation and could be attacked in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The limitation plea had not been raised before the assessing authority. In any event, where a statutory remedy by appeal was available, the writ jurisdiction was not to be used to reopen such a contention in the absence of proper factual foundation.

Conclusion: The limitation contention was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the Commercial Tax Officer had jurisdiction to make the impugned assessments after the States Reorganisation Act, having regard to the delegation made under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953.

Analysis: The power to assess under section 14 had been delegated by the Collector under section 44 through a notification. By virtue of section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act, the existing law and the notification continued to operate in the reorganised territory until altered by competent authority. The definition of law in section 2(h) included notifications, and there was no showing that the delegation had been replaced or repealed. The change from Sales Tax Officers to Commercial Tax Officers under the Mysore regime did not destroy the jurisdiction derived from the continuing delegation.

Conclusion: The Commercial Tax Officer had jurisdiction and the assessments were valid.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed on all substantial grounds, and the impugned assessments were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A delegation of taxing power made under an existing sales tax law continues after reorganisation by virtue of the statutory saving provision, unless it is modified or replaced by competent authority, and a writ petitioner cannot challenge a notification without being actually aggrieved by it.

---