TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (1) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, in Revision Cases Nos. 533 and 534 of 1964-65 so that conscionable justice may be administered by quashing the orders and also to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue commanding the respondents not to proceed on the basis of the orders and/or notice in Form VI dated 22nd February, 1964. The order dated 30th April, 1965, is to be found in annexure H to the petition. The order was made on a petition for revision under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, of the order dated 26th November, 1964, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes rejecting the petition of objection against the propriety of the Commercial Tax Officer in the matter of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On 22nd February, 1964, the notice in Form VI under sections 11(2) and 14(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act was issued. On 12th June, 1964, the petitioners filed a petition for revision of the order dated 13th February, 1964. On 9th July, 1964, the petitioners produced books before the Commercial Tax Officer. On 4th November, 1964, the petitioners' application for revision of the order dated 13th February, 1964, was rejected as time-barred. On 25th November, 1964, the petitioners' application dated 2nd September, 1964, for revision of the order dated 9th July, 1964, was rejected. On 20th January, 1965, the petitioners made application for revision of the orders dated 4th November, 1964, and 26th November, 1964, and those petitions w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt case. The third contention on behalf of the petitioners was that under section 4(2) of the Act the liability of a dealer is determined, and rules 4 and 6 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act deal with applications for certificate of registration and rule 71 shows the powers which the Commissioner can delegate or has delegated and it will appear that the power under section 4(2) has not been delegated and, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass any order. Under section 20 of the Act it will appear that any dealer has a right to appeal against any assessment within sixty days. In the present case there was an assessment made. Under section 3 and section 3A it will appear as to who the taxing authoritie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utta and Others(1963) 1 S.C.A. 348, in support of the contention that once an order of an original authority is taken to the higher authorities, it is the order of the higher authority which is the operative order. In the East India Commercial Company case(1), the order was passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, and an appeal was taken to the Central Board of Revenue. The Central Board of Revenue was situated at Delhi. The question arose as to whether any writ could issue against the Central Board of Revenue which was located outside the jurisdiction of the Court and, if no writ could issue against the Central Board of Revenue whether any writ could be issued against the authority which passed the original order. In the East India Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partmental proceedings. The principles deduced from both the decisions of the Supreme Court are these. If an appeal has been preferred, the appellate order would be operative. On the other hand, the departmental orders passed at different stages remain effective by virtue of their own existence if they are not subject-matter of appeals. In the present case the order dated 13th February, 1964, was not taken upon appeal. Applications were made for revision. The orders passed upon such applications did not touch the order dated 13th February, 1964. The order dated 13th February, 1964, has not been modified, reversed or confirmed. In other words, the orders passed on revision, as I have already indicated, were rejected as they were barred by ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer to make an assessment and such an order of assessment is perfectly valid and justified. The other contention as to lack of delegation is not one of the grounds taken in the petition and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to canvass this at all. Assuming, this could be gone into, the fallacy is, as I have already indicated, to equate statutory law with the power of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. It was contended that there was violation of Article 265 of the Constitution. Article 265 of the Constitution enacts that no tax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law. I am unable to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioners that there is any violation of Article 265. The assessment is made in....