2001 (4) TMI 878 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court bars revisional jurisdiction post-delegatee approval, grants petition, citing legal precedents

RPG Life Sciences Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax

RPG Life Sciences Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Sales Tax - [2001] 124 STC 157 (Guj) Issues:Challenge to issuance of notice for revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner after approval of order by the Deputy Commissioner (Legal).Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Challenge to Commissioner's exercise of revisional jurisdiction after approval of order by Deputy Commissioner (Legal)The petitioner challenged the notice issued by the Commissioner on December 20, 2000, conveying the intent to exercise revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner, engaged in pesticide manufacturing, had applied for an eligibility certificate under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme. The Additional Industries Commissioner issued a final eligibility certificate after initial approvals. The petitioner also sought determination of disputed questions under section 62 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, which was to be handled by the Deputy Commissioner (Legal) to whom the Commissioner had delegated powers. The Deputy Commissioner's decision, approved by the Commissioner, was challenged by the petitioner, arguing that once the delegatee had exercised powers, the Commissioner could not exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 67 of the Act.Analysis:The Court examined the delegation of powers by the Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner (Legal) and the subsequent approval process. It noted that the Deputy Commissioner's decision, approved by the Commissioner, effectively became the Commissioner's decision. Citing the provisions of section 27 of the Act, the Court emphasized that the powers inherently belonged to the Commissioner and could be exercised by officers appointed under the Act. The Court rejected the argument that a hierarchical structure allowed for further proceedings, asserting that once the Commissioner approved an order, he could not exercise revisional jurisdiction over it. The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision highlighting that when an order is approved by the delegating authority, it is inappropriate for that authority to review or revise the same order.Conclusion:In light of the legal principles and precedents cited, the Court allowed the petition, emphasizing that once the Commissioner approved the Deputy Commissioner's decision, he could not exercise revisional jurisdiction over it. The Court's decision was influenced by the Supreme Court's ruling on a similar matter, where the approving authority could not review or revise an order approved by a delegate. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the Commissioner's exercise of revisional jurisdiction after approval of the Deputy Commissioner's decision was not permissible. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.