1968 (10) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... some part of the turnover of the petitioner had escaped assessment made the impugned order, and there is more than one challenge made to it in this writ petition. The first is that under section 12-A, the Deputy Commissioner could exercise the power created by it only when he is dealing with a pending appeal which is before him. The second is that the provisions of section 12-A which authorise indiscriminate exercise of power by more than one authority are unconstitutional. The contention that the Deputy Commissioner could exercise power under section 12-A only in a pending appeal can no longer stand scrutiny by reason of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Appukutty[1963] 14 S.T.C. 242. in which the elucidation m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y Commissioner, the Commercial Tax Officer had exercised the power created by section 12-A the petitioner could have preferred a first appeal to the Deputy Commissioner, a second appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and a revision petition to this court. But under the Act as it then stood, from the order which the Deputy Commissioner made in the present case, there could be no appeal to anyone, and not even to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, and so, no revision petition could be preferred to this court under section 23. The conferment of power on the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, to revise an escaped assessment is also susceptible to the same criticism. In Mohta & Co. v. Viswanatha Sastry[1954] 26 I.T.R. 1; A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 545. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... present a revision petition to this court under section 23 of the Act. But one whom the Deputy Commissioner selects cannot. So, section 12-A as it then stood clearly offended against Article 14 of the Constitution and was therefore void. Section 22, which after its amendment by Act III of 1966, authorises an appeal from an order of the Deputy Commissioner under section 12-A has no relevance to the impugned order which was made before its amendment. In the view that we take, it is unnecessary for us to discuss the further criticism of section 12-A that it affords no intelligible guidance for the selection which it empowers. So, we set aside the order made by the Deputy Commissioner. No costs. Petition allowed.
Case laws, Decisions, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X