- (1.) In the writ petition the petitioner, sole proprietor of M/s. International Screw Company, registered under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, has challenged the order dated 1st August, 2008 passed by the Sales Tax Officer, Monohar Katra Charge, Group B, Kolkata, respondent No.1 withholding issuance of Declaration Form 'C' for the financial year 2007-08. Submission has been made that since it is well-settled that while discharging quasi-judicial function the assessing authority should act independently and not at the behest of the superior officers, it was imperative on the part of the said respondent to act and pass order independently regarding issuance of Declaration Form 'C' without being influenced by the observation made by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Burra Bazar Circle as evident from the order itself.
(2.) In order to appreciate the issue it is necessary to refer to the relevant portion of the order, being Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition, which is as under: "1/8/08 Seen the order of the DCCT/BB Circle....................................... ....................................... ....................................... The matter for issuance of d/form 'C' against purchases made during the period 4QE 31.3.08 vide the application made by the dealer on 30.7.08 was placed before the DCCT/BB Circle who has observed that d/form 'C' may be issued to the dealer to cover purchases, the proportionate sales of which results tax of Rs.1,60,000.00. As the dealer has already obtained d/form 'C' against purchases made during 4QE 31.3.06 and 4QE 31.3.2007 respectively, I am of the opinion that d/form 'C' against purchases for the period 4QE 31.3.2008 can't be issued to the dealer at this moment on due consideration of payment of taxes made by the dealer till date against his total amount of taxes which remains unpaid. So the application for issue of d/form 'C' filed by the dealer on 30.7.08 can't be accepted. Hence rejected accordingly. The A/R of the dealer has been informed in this regard."
(3.) It is apparent from the order under challenge that the Deputy Commissioner had observed that Declaration Form 'C' might be issued to the dealer to cover purchases to the extent of tax liability and, accordingly, the respondent No. 1 had passed the order. In my view, since the respondent No.1 is a quasi judicial authority, instead of being influenced by the observations made by the Deputy Commissioner, he should have acted in an independent manner. In this regard it is appropriate to refer to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Orient Paper Mills Limited vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1969 SC 48, relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner, which is as under: "If the power exercised by the Collector was a quasi judicial power - as we hold it to be - that power cannot be controlled by the directions issued by the Board. No authority however high placed can control the decision of a judicial or a quasi-judicial authority. That is the essence of our judicial system. There is no provision in the Act empowering the Board to issue directions to the assessing authorities or the appellate authorities in the matter of deciding disputes between the persons who are called upon to pay duty and the department. It is true that the assessing authorities as well as the appellate authorities are judges in their own cause; yet when they are called upon to decide the disputes arising under the Act they must act independently and impartially. They cannot be said to act independently if their judgment is controlled by the directions given by others.";