Additional tax officer authority upheld for search, seizure, and collection powers when duly authorised under the sales tax law.

An Additional Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, when duly authorised by the Commissioner under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, was treated as competent to exercise the powers attached to the substantive office, including search, seizure, and collection of tax and composition fee. The term "additional" was construed as describing an officer appointed to perform extra work of the same office, not as creating a separate or lesser jurisdiction. The Commissioner's notification for the relevant district was held valid, and the challenge based on lack of jurisdiction or reliance on the Income-tax Act failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an Additional Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, when authorised by the Commissioner, is competent to search and seize documents and collect tax and composition fee under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and whether the impugned action suffered from any jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The expression "additional" was construed as denoting an officer appointed to perform extra work of the same office, so that an Additional Assistant Commercial Tax Officer remains an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer for the relevant area or class of dealers when duly authorised. The Court held that the power to appoint an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer comprehends the power to appoint an Additional Assistant Commercial Tax Officer as well. Reliance was placed on earlier decisions treating an additional judicial officer as legally occupying the same office for purposes of the powers attached to it. The Court further held that the citation to the Income-tax Act did not assist the petitioner, and that the notification issued by the Commissioner on 1 February 1977 validly conferred authority over the relevant district.

Conclusion: The Additional Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was competent to act, and the search, seizure, and collection were not vitiated by lack of jurisdiction or manifest illegality. The writ challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An additional statutory officer, when authorised under the governing enactment, is legally competent to exercise the powers of the substantive office-holder, and such action does not suffer from jurisdictional defect merely because the office bears the qualifier "additional".

---