TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,464 from the petitioner as taxes due for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 and a sum of Rs. 5,000 as composition fee under section 31 of the Act. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order made by the ACTO on 16th August, 1978 (exhibit A). 2.. The petitioner claims that the ACTO was not authorised by law to search his premises and seize the documents, levy taxes, collect composition fee. Elaborating this, the petitioner contends that an "Additional" Assistant Commercial Tax Officer is not an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer authorised by the Act. 3.. At the hearing, the petitioner has also urged that under section 3B(3)(a) of the Act, the Commissioner had not authorised the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbent of that office. In law the position of an additional officer is that of the very officer that holds the office. In this view, an Additional Assistant Commercial Tax Officer will also be an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer of the area or class of dealers, if authorised by the Commissioner under section 3B(3)(a) of the Act. 8.. The power to appoint an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer comprehends in itself the power to appoint the Additional Assistant Commercial Tax Officer also. 9.. On any legal principles, it is difficult to hold that an Additional Assistant Commercial Tax Officer is not an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. 10.. In Haji M.P. Mohammed's (1964) 2 Mys LJ 458 and Ganesh Rao's cases (1975) 2 Kar LJ 352, this Court was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Commissioner of Income-tax, A.P.'s case [1975] 100 ITR 483 does not really bear on the point. 14.. At the hearing Sri Narasimhan has placed before me the notification dated 1st February, 1977, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes conferring power on the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Davanagere, to exercise the powers over the entire District of Chitradurga. 15.. In view of the aforesaid notification and the construction placed by me earlier, the ACTO was competent to search the premises and seize the document from the petitioner on 16th August, 1978. 16.. On the above discussion, it follows that the order made by the ACTO on 16th August, 1978, does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or manifest il ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
