Revisional power under trade tax law upheld where Joint Commissioner fell within statutory definition of Commissioner, making separate notification unnecessary.

Section 10-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was construed to permit a Joint Commissioner to exercise revisional power because the statutory definition of "Commissioner" included a Joint Commissioner of Trade Tax appointed by the State Government. The Court held that, once a Joint Commissioner fell within that definition, no separate notification was required for revisional competence. It further held that category-wise distinctions in the Rules could not override or restrict the parent statute, and delegated legislation could not narrow the statutory meaning of Commissioner. The challenge to the revisional orders on the ground of specific notification was therefore unsustainable, and the de facto doctrine did not arise.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Joint Commissioner was competent to exercise revisional powers under Section 10-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 without a separate notification, and whether the challenge to the revisional orders was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 10-B vested revisional power in the Commissioner and in such other officer not below the prescribed rank as may be authorised by the State Government by notification. Section 2(b) defined Commissioner to include a Joint Commissioner of Trade Tax appointed by the State Government. Once a Joint Commissioner fell within the statutory meaning of Commissioner, separate authorisation by notification was unnecessary for the exercise of revisional power. The Court further held that the classification of categories in the Rules could not control the parent statute, and delegated rules could not be read so as to restrict the statutory definition. The challenge based on absence of a specific notification or on category-wise distinction among Joint Commissioners was therefore unsustainable, and the question of the de facto doctrine did not arise.

Conclusion: The Joint Commissioner was legally competent to exercise revisional powers under Section 10-B, and the revisionists' challenge failed.

---