R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this petition is if the Deputy Commissioner, Sales tax, could in exercise of his administrative power direct the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), not to decide an appeal pending before him Although the officer had been transferred yet the question of law being of some importance it is necessary to mention that originally the petition was heard and an order allowing the writ petition was dictated in open Court but later on some doubt arose while signing the order, therefore, the petition was directed to be listed for further hearing. Hearing learned counsel for parties judgment was reserve. In September, 1985 the Sales Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Muzaffarnagar seized the goods which were being carried in a truck. Against this order petitioner filed an appeal and an application for release of goods before Assistant Commissioner Sale -tax (Executive) as well as Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax (Executive). The appeals were directed against the order demanding security. They were heard by Assistant Commissioner (Judicial). But before the judgment could be delivered the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) stayed the hearing of appeal on the order of Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax that he may not hear these appeals. In counter affidavit action is defended on two grounds, one that the appeal against security was not competent and another that the Assistant Commissioner had summoned various sales -tax authorities for cross -examination who had made a representation against such summon. It was averred that since allegations of prejudice and mala fide has been made against the appellate authority and if the appeal would have been decided the respondents were likely to suffer grave injustice therefore, it was considered appropriate to direct him not to hear the appeals.
(2.) WHETHER the appeal was competent or incompetent or it was maintainable or not, or whether the Assistant Commissioner was justified in summoning various authorities of sales -tax Department was a question which should have been decided on the judicial side and not on the administrative side. If the department was aggrieved by any action the proper remedy for it was to have approached the higher authorities for redress rather than approaching the Deputy Commissioner for issuing direction from preventing the authority of Sales Tax from proceeding with the case. Administrative and judicial functioning are separate. Although the Sale -tax department is an instrumentality of State but it also in exercise of this function discharges judicial duties assigned to it under the Statute. While doing such duty the authority has to act in accordance with the laws, and any interference in judicial discharge of duty tantamount to interference with administration of justice. A Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or any authority of Sales Tax Department is entitled to issue circulars, directions or even orders to subordinate authorities in accordance with the provisions and to the extent authorised by the Act but it cannot travel beyond it and assume supervisory jurisdiction in respect of judicial matters which are specifically reserved for higher authorities namely, tribunal or the High Court. The order of Deputy Commissioner was against all propriety and judicial discipline. Such interference is bound to create dissatisfaction and give a feeling of bias against the department. X X X X X X X Although the Deputy Commissioner was unjustified in issuing directions to the Assistant Commissioner appeals to have gone out of way in issuing notices to various officers summoning them for cross -examination. Since the officer has been transferred no effective relief can be granted. Therefore, with these observations the petition is disposed of by directing the authorities to decide the appeal, if it had not already been decided, expeditiously in accordance with law.;