Transitional appellate jurisdiction and delegated appointment power upheld under Assam revenue and excise law framework.

The SC considered whether the Assam Revenue Tribunal (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1948 validly redistributed appellate jurisdiction and whether the Government's power to appoint the appellate authority amounted to excessive delegation. It held that the transitional provision in section 296(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 did not require any particular tribunal structure, and that the 1948 Act itself lawfully allocated jurisdiction between the High Court and the appointed authority. The notification appointing the Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals was also upheld, as it merely implemented the statute and was not repugnant to the excise law. The appellate authority was therefore validly constituted, and its decisions stood.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 3(3) of the Assam Revenue Tribunal (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1948 was invalid for inconsistency with section 296(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 and for excessive delegation of legislative power; (ii) whether the notification appointing the Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals as the appellate authority was invalid as being repugnant to section 9 of the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910 and the scheme of the excise law; (iii) whether the appellate authority appointed under the 1948 Act was validly constituted and its decisions were void.

Issue (i): Whether section 3(3) of the Assam Revenue Tribunal (Transfer of Powers) Act, 1948 was invalid for inconsistency with section 296(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 and for excessive delegation of legislative power.

Analysis: Section 296(2) was construed as a provision enabling the Governor to constitute a tribunal for a transitional period where final revenue appellate jurisdiction had earlier vested in the Provincial Government. It did not impose a mandatory obligation on the Provincial Legislature to enact any particular form of tribunal, nor did it restrict the Legislature's general power to make provision for appellate jurisdiction. The 1948 Act was read as a legislative measure by which the Assam Legislature itself distributed the former tribunal's jurisdiction between the High Court and the authority to be appointed under section 3(3). The Legislature had applied its mind to the scheme, the transfer of pending matters, and the field of jurisdiction assigned to each authority. The power given to the Provincial Government was confined to appointing the person or persons to man the authority, and no excessive delegation was established.

Conclusion: Section 3(3) was valid and not void on either ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification appointing the Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals as the appellate authority was invalid as being repugnant to section 9 of the Eastern Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910 and the scheme of the excise law.

Analysis: The appellate structure under the 1910 Act had already been affected by section 296 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and later replaced by the Assam Revenue Tribunal under the 1946 Act. The 1948 Act further reallocated that appellate jurisdiction. The notification merely appointed the authority contemplated by section 3(3) to exercise the jurisdiction assigned to it by the statute. The possibility that the same officer might, in another context, deal with appeals arising from some orders of his own did not affect the validity of the appointment; at most it could create a limited disqualification in a particular case. No repugnancy to section 9 of the 1910 Act was made out.

Conclusion: The notification was valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellate authority appointed under the 1948 Act was validly constituted and its decisions were void.

Analysis: Once section 3(3) and the notification were upheld, the appellate authority had lawful existence for the class of matters assigned to it. The transfer and redistribution of jurisdiction under the 1948 Act left no vacuum in appellate power, and the decisions rendered by the authority were made within the statutory framework.

Conclusion: The appellate authority was validly constituted and its decisions were not nullities.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's writ orders were set aside, and the orders of the appellate authority were restored, with the appeals decided in favour of the State of Assam.

Ratio Decidendi: A statute that itself distributes appellate jurisdiction between specified authorities and authorises the Government only to appoint the personnel of one such authority does not amount to an unconstitutional delegation, and a transitional constitutional provision enabling the constitution of a tribunal does not by itself impose a mandatory legislative duty to create one in any particular form.

---