Delegation of statutory power cannot be presumed; cancellation of registration was without jurisdiction absent valid written authorisation.

Power to issue notice and cancel registration under section 30AA of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act vested in the Commissioner, and delegation was permissible only by a written order under section 27(6). Because the record showed delegation only to Assistant Commissioners and no valid delegation to the Sales Tax Officer, jurisdiction could not be presumed from regularity of official acts. A jurisdictional defect may be raised at any stage, and the cancellation order was therefore without authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of any order showing delegation of power by the Commissioner, the Sales Tax Officer could be presumed to have jurisdiction to act under section 30AA of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and cancel the registration of the dealer.

Analysis: Section 30AA vested the power of issuing notice and cancelling registration in the Commissioner. Section 27(6) permitted delegation of the Commissioner's powers to specified sales tax authorities by an order in writing. The record showed delegation under section 30AA only in favour of Assistant Commissioners, and no material established delegation to the Sales Tax Officer. A jurisdictional defect could be raised at any stage, and where the statute prescribes the mode of delegation, valid delegation cannot be presumed merely on the basis of regularity of official acts. In the absence of delegation, the Sales Tax Officer lacked authority to pass the cancellation order.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative. The Tribunal was not justified in presuming jurisdiction in favour of the Sales Tax Officer, and the cancellation order was without jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute vests power in a specified authority and permits delegation only in the manner prescribed, jurisdiction cannot be presumed in the absence of proof of valid delegation.

---