Quasi-judicial tax certification protected from discipline where administrative circular lacked statutory force and law then in force was followed.

A departmental circular lacking statutory force could not restrain a taxing officer's quasi-judicial function, and an administrative direction cannot override powers exercised under the Act and Rules. The later statutory amendment reinforced that such directions must remain consistent with the governing law. On the tax issue, the certificates were issued consistently with the law then in force because casual disposal of unserviceable materials was not exigible to sales tax and the entity was not shown to be carrying on scrap trading with profit motive. As the certifications were bona fide and no mala fides or intent to cause revenue loss was established, disciplinary penalties and the finding of pecuniary loss were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the certificates issued by the petitioner, acting as a taxing officer in a quasi-judicial capacity, were contrary to law and the departmental circular so as to justify disciplinary penalties and a finding of pecuniary loss to the State.

Analysis: The circular issued by the Commissioner in 1985 prohibiting subordinate officers from giving clarifications or interpretations was treated as an administrative direction without statutory force, since the Commissioner had no power under the Act to restrain the exercise of quasi-judicial functions. The later insertion of section 73A by the Assam General Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 2000 reinforced that such directions could be issued only consistently with the Act and the Rules. On the taxability question, the Court held that, on the law then in force, Project Vartak was not carrying on the business of buying or selling scrap materials with a profit motive, and casual disposal of unserviceable materials was not exigible to sales tax. The certificates were therefore consistent with the prevailing statutory position when issued, and no mala fide or intent to cause revenue loss could be attributed to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The disciplinary penalties could not be sustained and the finding of revenue loss was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the petitioner's bona fide quasi-judicial certification was held not to warrant disciplinary punishment under the law as it then stood.

Ratio Decidendi: A public officer exercising quasi-judicial taxing powers cannot be penalised for issuing a bona fide decision consistent with the law then in force, and an administrative circular lacking statutory force cannot override that function.

---