TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds Deputy Director's authority to decide revisions under Act 1964</h1> <h3>GANESH GRAIN STORE, SHRI LAXMI JI FLOUR & DAL MILL and SHRI LAXMI JI DAL MILL Versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS</h3> GANESH GRAIN STORE, SHRI LAXMI JI FLOUR & DAL MILL and SHRI LAXMI JI DAL MILL Versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS - [2021] 86 G S.T.R. 376 (All) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction and authority of the Deputy Director to decide revisions under Section 32 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Act, 1964.2. Validity of the delegation of powers by the Director to the Deputy Director.3. Legality of the demand raised from the petitioners.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Deputy Director:The primary issue in all the writ petitions is whether the Director was competent to delegate the power of deciding revisions filed under Section 32 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Act, 1964 (the Act, 1964) to the Deputy Director. The petitioner argued that the Deputy Director had no authority or jurisdiction to decide the revision as the Director himself was exercising delegated power and had no authority to further delegate or sub-delegate his power. The court examined the relevant sections of the Act, 1964, particularly Sections 2(h), 26I, 27, 32, 33, and 33A, and Rule 135 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Rules, 1965 (the Rules, 1965). The court concluded that the power of revision when delegated to the Director by virtue of Section 33 becomes a function to be performed by the Director under the Act, 1964. Therefore, the Director can authorize any other officer to perform all or any of his functions under the Act, 1964, which includes delegated powers to be performed by the Director under Section 32 of the Act, 1964.2. Validity of Delegation of Powers:The court referred to the principle 'delegatus non potest delegare,' which means a delegate has no power to delegate. However, it noted that this principle has a different field of operation in the context of legislative powers vis-a-vis non-legislative/administrative powers. The court cited various judgments, including Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, and Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., to support the view that non-legislative/administrative powers can be delegated if the statute allows it. The court found that the delegation of power by the Director to the Deputy Director was valid and within the scope of the Act, 1964. The court emphasized that once the power is conferred and the decision-making is performed by the primary delegate, the implementation of the decision can be handled by authorized officers.3. Legality of the Demand Raised:The court did not address the merits of the issue regarding the validity of the demand raised from the petitioners, as the arguments were focused on the jurisdiction and delegation of powers. Therefore, the court did not examine whether the demand raised from the petitioners was valid or not.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Deputy Director had the valid authority to decide the revisions under Section 32 of the Act, 1964, as the Director was authorized to delegate such powers. The writ petitions were dismissed, and the interim orders, if any, were vacated. The court did not address the merits of the demand raised from the petitioners.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
