Territorial jurisdiction and equality concerns invalidated a tax notice issued under concurrent jurisdiction, with fresh proceedings left open.

Concurrent jurisdiction conferred on tax officers was held inconsistent with section 4, which contemplated power tied to a local area, and the arrangement was also found capable of discriminatory consequences under article 14. A later amendment to section 4 did not itself cure the defect in the prior conferment of concurrent jurisdiction, and a subsequent notification delimiting territorial areas could not operate retrospectively to validate a notice already issued without lawful territorial authority. The impugned notice was therefore quashed, while proceedings by the officer having ordinary jurisdiction were left open to be taken afresh according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned notice issued by a Commercial Tax Officer having concurrent jurisdiction over the entire State was invalid for want of lawful territorial authority and for offending the equality clause, and whether later delimitation of jurisdiction could validate the notice retrospectively.

Analysis: The jurisdiction conferred on the officers was held to be inconsistent with section 4 because that provision contemplated conferral of power with respect to a local area. The conferment of concurrent jurisdiction over the same area on several officers was also held to be susceptible to discriminatory consequences and therefore violative of article 14. Although the Legislature later amended section 4, no corresponding provision cured the defect arising from concurrent jurisdiction. The subsequent notification delimiting jurisdictional areas could not operate retrospectively so as to validate a notice already issued without proper jurisdiction. The Court also noted that the quashing of the notice would not prevent the officer having ordinary jurisdiction from proceeding afresh according to law.

Conclusion: The impugned notice was invalid and was quashed. The writ petitions were allowed, while fresh proceedings by the competent officer were left open.

---