- (1.) THIS is a revision application filed under sec. 84 and sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act read with secs. 115 and 151 of C. P. C. against the order of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Udaipur dated 30-1-70.
(2.) FACTS of the case, in brief, are that the revisionist is alleged to have purchased Bus No- RJY 1558 from Shri Amrik Singh long before December 1968 by oral sale and took possession after paying the price On 17-1-70 the applicant placed his said vehicle under repairs with Shri Kirpal Singh. On 19-1-1970 an Inspector of Sales Tax Department, along with Shri Amrik Singh seized the vehicle under some order of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer and took it away without giving any receipt for the same. Contention of the applicant is that no dues of the Sales Tax Department are outstanding against him nor any demand notice was ever served upon him hence, it was prayed that the vehicle be restored to him. The applicant has produced copy of the order of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer passed by him on an application dated 30-1-70 presented before him praying for issue of receipt or copy of seizure memo in respect of the vehicle seized under his orders. On this application the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer passed an order to the following effect again at which this revision application has been filed: "applicant is not the owner of the vehicle therefore he has no concern with this vehicle. This be filed because as per report of the Commercial Taxes Officer 'a' the receipt for the vehicle has been given to the owner of the vehicle Amrik Singh. ' A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the department that this revision application was not maintainable as it was filed under sec. 84 read with sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Under sec. 84 of the Act, the Board has the power to call for the record of only case of a judicial nature, if it appeared that the court or officer concerned has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, and it may pass such orders in the case as it thinks fit. Under sec. 9 the Board exercised powers of general superintendence and control over all revenue courts and over all revenue officers, all such courts and officers shall be subordinate to the Board. It was argued that the case in hand was not of a judicial nature so as to attract the provisions of sec. 14. List of cases of judicial nature has been given in the Schedule I, which did not contain the nature of the present case to fall within the cases of judicial nature. It was also argued that the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, against whose order this revision application has been filed did not contribute a revenue court nor he was a revenue officer so as to be subordinate to the Board and be under its general superintendence and control. It was also pointed out that remedy for filing an appeal or revision against any order passed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act was provided in sec. 14 and 15 of the Act and as such no revision was entertainable to the Board. It was also argued that if the department had seized any third party's vehicle, then it could knock the doors of the civil court. In support of these arguments Revision No. 52-54 of 1970 Vijay Singh vs. The State decided on 27-5-1970 was cited, but in respect of this the learned counsel's objection was that its certified copy has not been produced, hence it could not be cited. The learned counsel for the applicant replied that in schedule I (Under sec. 23) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, at serial No. 14 Sales and Auctions under this Act were listed as matters of judicial nature. Attention was also invited to sec. 256 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act which provided for recovery of certain moneys under the Act in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. It was argued that tax dues under the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, were recoverable as arrears of land revenue for which the procedure laid down in the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act has to be followed and the officers of the Sales Tax Department have been delegated power of the revenue officers, therefore, the officers of the Sales Tax Department, while proceeding to effect recovery of their dues acted as revenue officers and as such were subordinate to the Board, therefore the Board could entertain the revision application 1969 RRD p. 10 was cited, but this did not apply to the case in hand. In the case cited above there was a written agreement between the parties which formed the basis for the recovery proceedings initiated under sec. 256 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It was held that proceedings for recovery under sec. 258 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act were not tenable as the amount was recoverable under Public Demand Recovery Act only. It was also argued that in sec. 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the word subordinate court or subordinate officer has not been mentioned therefore the Board could call for the record of any case of a judicial nature decided by any court or officer. It was not necessary that such officer should be subordinate to the Board. It was also argued that under sec. 9 of the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, jurisdiction of Civil Courts was barred. In reply to the above it was said that u/s. 8 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, the Board was the highest revenue court of appeal, revision and reference in Rajasthan Under sec. 9 of the Act, the Board exercised general superintendence and control over all revenue courts and over all revenue officers and such revenue courts and revenue officers shall be subordinate to the Board. By mere delegation of powers to the officers of the Sales Tax Department to adopt the procedure prescribed for recovery of moneys as arrears of land revenue, the officers of the Sales Tax Department, did not become revenue officers, and therefore they could not be said to be subordinate to the Board. It was also said that if the intention of the legislature was to give powers of hearing decision to the Board, then as in the case of Sales Tax Act such powers would have been provided in the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act. It was also pointed out that the Civil Courts had the power to interfere in cases where jurisdiction under the Passengers and Goods Taxation Act was exceeded. I have given my consideration to the above arguments. In my considered view, a revision application did not lie with the Board in a case in which an officer under the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act passed an order for recovery of the due of the Department. Such an officer by mere delegation of powers of Revenue Officers for the purposes of recovery of dues as arrear of land revenue did not become revenue officer, since they were not appointed as revenue officers under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The Board did not exercise any superintendence or control over them, because they were not subordinate to it. Only Revenue Court and Revenue Officers were subordinate to it and any order passed by them could be heard in revision provided the order attracted the provisions of sec. 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. The present case was not a case of judicial nature, because sales and auctions under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act were matters of judicial nature. Sec 15 of the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act specifically provided for revision. In view of this a revision application against the order of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer could lie before the Sales Tax Commissioner and not before the Board. In view of the above observations, the preliminary objection is upheld and the revision is held non-maintainable. Pronounced in open Court. .;