1986 (12) TMI 347 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to legality and vires of notice dated 22nd August, 1986, issued by Commissioner of Sales Tax under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Interpretation of Sections 9, 43, 46, and 47 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act.
Jurisdiction of Commissioner to revise orders under Section 46.
Validity of impugned notice seeking revision of order by Additional Commissioner.
Applicability of rules regarding appeals and revision under the Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered company under the Companies Act, challenged the notice issued by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi, seeking to revise the order of the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax. The demands raised against the petitioner for certain years, including interest, were appealed before the Additional Commissioner, who granted reliefs to the petitioner. The issue revolved around the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to revise the order under Section 46 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975.

The petitioner contended that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the order of the Additional Commissioner, primarily arguing that the Additional Commissioner could not be considered an authority appointed under Section 9(2) to assist the Commissioner. The petitioner relied on a previous case to support this contention. However, the Court disagreed with this argument, emphasizing that the Additional Commissioner and other officers appointed under Section 9(2) are statutory positions created by the Act to assist the Commissioner in executing his functions.

The Court highlighted the provisions of Section 43, which govern appeals, and Rule 35, which specifies the authorities to which appeals shall lie. It reiterated that the Commissioner is the head of the sales tax department, and the Additional Commissioner is appointed to assist him. Sections 46 and 47 confer revision powers upon the Commissioner against orders passed by authorities appointed under Section 9(2) to assist him, including orders passed in appeal.

In support of its decision, the Court referenced a similar provision in the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and a relevant case interpretation. The Court concluded that there was no illegality or lack of jurisdiction in the impugned notice seeking revision of the order by the Additional Commissioner. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the order was deemed applicable to other related cases raising similar issues.

In summary, the judgment clarified the statutory framework governing appeals, revision powers of the Commissioner, and the role of authorities appointed under Section 9(2) in assisting the Commissioner. The decision upheld the Commissioner's jurisdiction to revise orders, emphasizing the hierarchical structure within the sales tax department and the statutory basis for appeal mechanisms.