TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... int Commissioner" - Essentially therefore, it recognised two classes of officers who could possibly exercise the powers of revision. The first class of course was the Commissioner while the second class was to comprise of such other officers not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner /Joint Commissioner as may have been authorised in this behalf by the State Government by notification. The recognition of a revisional power vesting in the Commissioner is not an issue on which there can possibly be any doubt. The fact that the Commissioner did not require a separate authorisation by the State Government or a notification of such authorization is evident from a plain construct of Section 10-B. Prior to the amendment of Section 2(b), the only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conferred by Section 10-B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act 19481. The issue itself which has been canvassed for consideration before this Court was that the said Joint Commissioner (Executive) was not empowered or authorised to exercise the revisional powers as comprised in Section 10-B. In order to appreciate the submissions which have been advanced, it would be apposite to extract Section 10-B as it stood in its original form. Section 10-B prior to its various amendments which shall be referred to hereinafter originally read thus:- Section 10-B. Revision by Commissioner of Sales Tax. (1) The Commissioner of Sales Tax or such other Officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax as may be authorised in this behalf by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x to exercise the powers under the aforesaid section. Section 10-B thereafter came to be amended by U.P. Act No. 31 of 1995 and in terms of Section 25 of the Amending Act, the words of Sales Tax as suffixed to the words Deputy Commissioner stood deleted. Thereafter came the 2003 Amendment which was brought into force by U.P. Act No. 11 of 2003. In terms of Section 1(2) of the said Amending Act, it was provided that Sections 2 to 9 and clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 10 as also Sections 11 to 15 would be deemed to have come into force on 18 October 2002, whereas clause (iii) of Section 10 would be deemed to have come into force on 6 May 2003. It is also pertinent to note here that the Act which defined the expression Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Tribunal, it noted the contention advanced on behalf of the respondents that the words Deputy Commissioner stood duly substituted by the words Joint Commissioner in terms of the 2003 Amendment effected to the Rules and that therefore, no separate authorisation or notification was required. This contention has also found acceptance by the Tribunal. Reverting to the submissions advanced in support of the revisions, it would also be relevant to note that it was contended that the acts and decisions of the Joint Commissioner cannot be validated or saved by application of the de facto doctrine since there was no appointment made in his favour and that he was therefore, liable to be viewed as a mere usurper of office. Additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for that matter a blatant usurpation of jurisdiction. It is these contentions which now fall for determination. A careful reading of Section 10-B would clearly establish that initially the provision empowered the Commissioner or such other officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner to exercise powers of revision. The words Deputy Commissioner was later on amended and substituted by the words Joint Commissioner . Essentially therefore, it recognised two classes of officers who could possibly exercise the powers of revision. The first class of course was the Commissioner while the second class was to comprise of such other officers not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner /Joint Commissioner as may have been authorised in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the jurisdiction to exercise the powers of revision. Undisputedly, a Joint Commissioner stood included in the expression Commissioner as per section 2 (b). In view of the above findings, it is evident and apparent that the challenge to the authority of the Joint Commissioner to exercise powers conferred by Section 10-B is misconceived and is liable to be negatived. In view of the finding of the Court on this issue, the question of whether the decisions rendered by the Joint Commissioner should be saved by application of the de facto doctrine clearly does not arise. That leaves the Court to only consider the additional submission of Sri Rai that in order for the power under Section 10-B to be validly exercised, there must be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
