Quasi-judicial tax-rate determination under a structured hearing process bars intra-court appeal in supervisory proceedings.

A structured procedure requiring application, disclosure of facts, supporting documents, enquiry and hearing for determination of a disputed tax rate under section 70 of the Chhattisgarh VAT Act indicates adjudication of a contested issue, so the Commissioner acts in a quasi-judicial capacity rather than administratively. A challenge to such an order is in substance a supervisory proceeding under article 227, and the intra-court writ appeal was therefore held not maintainable under the governing appeal provision. The appeal accordingly failed in limine, while the quasi-judicial character of the rate determination was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner, while determining disputed questions of tax rate under section 70 of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, exercises quasi-judicial or administrative power; (ii) whether the writ appeal against the single judge's order was maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner, while determining disputed questions of tax rate under section 70 of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, exercises quasi-judicial or administrative power.

Analysis: Section 70 requires the Commissioner to determine the rate of tax on a dealer's application within a prescribed procedure. Rule 79 of the Chhattisgarh Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 prescribes a detailed process, including deposit of fee, disclosure of facts, supporting documents, enquiry by the Commissioner and opportunity of hearing. The prescribed procedure indicates adjudication of a disputed issue between parties, not a mere administrative act.

Conclusion: The Commissioner exercises quasi-judicial power and the order is not administrative.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ appeal against the single judge's order was maintainable.

Analysis: The challenge was directed against an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority. The substance of the proceedings was therefore under article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, the intra-court appeal was not maintainable against such an order.

Conclusion: The writ appeal was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in limine, while affirming the quasi-judicial character of the Commissioner's determination under section 70 and the supervisory nature of the challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a structured procedure with notice, enquiry and hearing for deciding a disputed tax-rate question, the authority acts quasi-judicially; a challenge to such an order in substance lies under article 227, making an intra-court appeal not maintainable where the governing law excludes it.

---