Delegated penalty jurisdiction under sales tax law upheld where the imposed penalty stayed within the authorised limit.

Delegated penalty jurisdiction under the Orissa Sales Tax Act depended on the post-amendment allocation of authority between the Commissioner and the Sales Tax Officer. The amended Section 9-B(3) vested power in the Commissioner for penalties beyond twice the tax realised, while the Sales Tax Officer retained delegated authority under the existing circular or notification to impose penalty up to that limit. Because the proposed penalty did not exceed twice the tax involved, the Sales Tax Officer was acting within jurisdiction in initiating and imposing the penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Sales Tax Officer had jurisdiction to impose penalty under Section 9-B(3) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 in the absence of delegation by the Commissioner after the 1983 amendment.

Analysis: The challenge was confined to the legality of the penalty jurisdiction. The amendment to Section 9-B(3) vested power to impose penalty beyond twice the tax realised in the Commissioner, while the Sales Tax Officer continued to have delegated authority to impose penalty up to twice the tax realised under the circular/notification then in force. Since the proposed penalty did not exceed that limit, the initiation and imposition of penalty by the Sales Tax Officer was within jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Sales Tax Officer was within jurisdiction to impose the penalty because the proposed penalty did not exceed twice the tax involved.

Ratio Decidendi: Where delegated authority is expressly limited to penalty up to a specified multiple of tax realised, the assessing authority acts within jurisdiction so long as the penalty proposed or imposed remains within that delegated limit.

---