State-wide tax jurisdiction and retrospective validation for intelligence officers were held invalid for lack of statutory authority and unequal treatment.

Statutory "local limits" for assessment officers were construed as territorial areas smaller than the whole State, so a notification conferring State-wide jurisdiction on Intelligence officers was beyond power and assessments made under it were without jurisdiction. The concurrent vesting of assessment powers in multiple officers, without clear guidelines and without a comparable appellate remedy for dealers assessed by Intelligence officers, was treated as arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14. A later retrospective deeming amendment could not validate actions taken before lawful authority existed. Provisional assessment, garnishee action, penalty notice, and compounding fee collection in the individual matters were therefore held illegal and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner and the State Government could confer territorial jurisdiction over the entire State on Intelligence officers under the Act; (ii) whether the concurrent assessment powers and appellate arrangement for Intelligence officers were arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14; (iii) whether the amendment purporting to confer retrospective assessment power on Intelligence officers was valid; (iv) whether the provisional assessment, garnishee action, penalty notice, and compounding fee collection in the individual writ petitions were within jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner and the State Government could confer territorial jurisdiction over the entire State on Intelligence officers under the Act.

Analysis: The expression "local limits" in section 4 was held to contemplate a territorial area less than the whole State. The statutory scheme distinguished the State as a whole from local limits within it, and the purpose of assigning local limits was to avoid hardship to dealers. A notification fixing the entire State as the jurisdiction of Intelligence officers was therefore beyond the power conferred by section 4 and could not validly authorise assessment action under section 14 read with rule 31.

Conclusion: The notification conferring State-wide jurisdiction on Intelligence officers was ultra vires and assessments made by them were without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the concurrent assessment powers and appellate arrangement for Intelligence officers were arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14.

Analysis: Multiple authorities were empowered to assess the same dealer, but no adequate guideline determined which authority would act. Dealers assessed by local officers or special evasion officers had an appellate remedy, whereas those assessed by Intelligence officers or Assistant Commissioners (Intelligence) were deprived of a comparable appeal. This unequal exposure to different procedures and the resultant hardship was treated as discriminatory and arbitrary.

Conclusion: The conferment of assessment powers on Intelligence officers, read with the impugned notifications, was held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

Issue (iii): Whether the amendment purporting to confer retrospective assessment power on Intelligence officers was valid.

Analysis: A delegate cannot create retrospective operation unless the parent statute expressly or by necessary implication authorises it. The retrospective deeming language in the later Government Order could not enlarge the delegated power beyond the statute. Consequently, assessments made before the officers were validly invested with power could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The retrospective authorisation was invalid and could not validate prior assessments.

Issue (iv): Whether the provisional assessment, garnishee action, penalty notice, and compounding fee collection in the individual writ petitions were within jurisdiction.

Analysis: Where a final assessment had already been made by the competent local assessing officer, a fresh provisional assessment by an Intelligence officer was not permissible. A garnishee order could not be sustained before tax was due and in arrears. The compounding fee was also collected by an officer acting outside his territorial jurisdiction and without the statutory basis required for that levy. The notices and proceedings in the individual cases were therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The individual assessment proceedings, garnishee action, penalty notice, and compounding fee collection were held illegal and without jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The batch of writ petitions succeeded in full, and the impugned assessment-related proceedings were quashed as lacking lawful authority and, in part, as offending constitutional equality guarantees.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute confines officers to local limits, a delegate cannot confer State-wide assessment jurisdiction or retrospective validating power on a class of officers in the absence of express statutory authority, and assessment procedures that deprive similarly placed dealers of an equal appellate remedy are unconstitutional under Article 14.

---