MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THESE two revision petitions involve a similar question and as such they are being disposed of by this common order. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer made a reference under section 15 (1), Rajasthan Sabs Tax Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Rajasthan Act') read with sec. 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Central Act' ). In pursuance of the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (Rajasthan Act No. 20 of 1984) (in short the Amendment Act), it was treated as an application for revision under Sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Act as amended by this Amendment Act. The second revision petition No. 388 of 1985 has been filed under see. 13 (6) of the Amendment Act against the order of the Revenue Board, Ajmer dated 13. 11. 1984, The facts giving rise to these revisions petitions may be summarised thus.
(2.) IN Revision Petition No. 92/87, an assessment order was passed on June 6, 1975 under the Central Act for the period from 7 8. 71 to 26. 8. 1972. After issuing notice and hearing the assessee, the assessing authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,456/- under Sec. 7-AA of the Rajasthan Act read with Sec. 9 (2-A) of the Central Act and levied interest of Rs. . 13,597/- under Sec. ll-B of the Rajasthan Act read with Sec. 9 (2) of the Central Act by his order dated January 2, 1978. Its appeal was dismissed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Ajmer. The assessee filed Revision No. 63/87 Bhilwara before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and it was allowed on October 4, 1978, holding that the said penally and interest could not be imposed under the aforesaid provisions of the Rajasthan Act as they did not exist in the Rajasthan Act when the Central Act came into force on January 5, 1957. Thereafter, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhilwara made an application before the Revenue Board for making a reference to this Court. It was allowed and the reference was made as said above. In Revision No. 338/85, the assessing authority levied interest of Rs. 27, 445/- under sec. ll-B of the Rajasthan Act read with Sec. 9 (2) of the Cent-ral Act on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to deposit in time the tax due on the sales affected during the course of inter-state trade and com-merce during the period from 22. 10. 68 to 9. 11. 69 by his order dated June 7, 1977. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Udaipur dismissed the appeal and confirmed the levy of the interest. Revision Petition No. 37/ 1979/udaipur was filed by the assessee and it was allowed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer on November 13, 1984 on the aforesaid grounds, A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the assessee-non-petitioner, M/s. Rajasthan Mineral Development Syndicate, Udaipur, that Commercial Taxes Officer, Sector 'b', Udaipur who has filed this revision petition, was not competent to do as he was not authorised by the learned Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur under Explanation given below sub-section (1-1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act (No. 20 of 1984) (hereinafter to be called 'the Amendment Act) or Section 15 (2) of the Act, as amended by Amendment Act. In reply, it has been contended by the learned standing counsel for the Department that the Explanation given below sub-section (11) of Section 13 of the Amendment Act is not exhaustive, 'any Person* may include any other officer though not authorised by the learned Commissioner and sub-sec. (6 ). of Sec. 13 of the Amendment Act clearly provides that any person aggrieved by order of the Board may apply to the High Court for revision of such order under Sec. 15 of the Act as amended. He further contended that the impugned assessment order was passed by the C. T. O, Special Circle, Kota on 7. 6. 77, by Notifi-cation No. S. O. 156 dated January 17, 1978, Special Circle, Kota was bifurcated in two special circles, namely, Special Circle, Kota and Special Circle, Udaipur and the assessing authority for the assessee-non-petitioner on the date of the filing of the revision was C. T. O. Circle 'b' Udaipur as is clear from the endorsement of the C. T. O. , Special Circle, Udaipur made on the back of the letter dated 26. 3. 85 issued by the Deputy Commissioner Legal Commercial Taxes Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, addressed to the C. T. O. , Special Circle, Kota. He also contended that the assessing authority is the aggrieved person within the meaning of Sec. 13 (6) of the Amendment Act. He lastly invited attention towards the Notification No F. 3 (E) 2)/tax/cct/79/2/dated May 16, 1979 (printed at S. No. 442 at p. 226 of Jai Kumar Jain's Book) by which the learned Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur has authorised all the assessing authorities to file applications under Sec. 15 of the Act. There is no great force in the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the assessee-non-petitioner. Section 13 (6) of the Amendment Act runs as under: - "13 (6) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Board made under sec. 14 or section 17 as it existed before the date of commencement of this Act, hereinafter referred to as the said date, may, within 120 days from the date of service of such order, if an application under sub-section (1) of section 15 or section 17 of the principal Act as they existed before the said date has not been filed, and the period of limitation has not expired, apply to the High Court for revision of such order under sec. 15 of the principal Act as substituted by this Act on the ground that the case involves a question of law. " Explanation given below sub-sec. (11) of Sec. 13 runs as follows: - "explanation.- For purposes of sub-sections (6) and (7), 'any person' includes the Commissioner or any Commercial Taxes Officer or Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf. "' It is clear from these provisions that any person aggrieved by an order of the Board made under Section 14 as it existed before the date of the commencement of this Amendment Act, may apply to the High Court for revision of such order under Sec. 15 of the Act as amended. The above quoted explanation contains "includes" and not "means". It is well settled that the word 'includes' is an inclusive definition and expands the meaning. Reference of M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v Union of India, (1) may be made here. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines assessing authority as under: - " (b) "assessing authority" in relation to a dealer means the Commercial Taxes Officer or the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer having jurisdiction for the time being. " It is clear from the Notification No. F (3) (a) (2) Tax/cct/ - /77/5/dated January 16, 1978 (published at Item No. 563 at 1281 of N. L. Pokhrana's Manual) that the C. T. O , Special Circle, Kota was bifurcated into two circles, namely, C. T. O. , Special Circle, Kota and C. T. O. , Special Circle, Udaipur. It is further clear from the endorsement made by the C. T. O , Special Circle, Udaipur on the back of the letter No. F5 (d) 36/tax/legai/commerciai/s5/!696 dated 26. 3. 85 addressed to the C. T. O,, Special Circle, Kota that by April, 1985, that the C. T. O. , Special Circle, Udaipur ceased to be the assessing authority of the assessee-non-petition-er and the C. T. O. , Circle 'b' Udaipur became its assessing authority By Notifica-No. F. 3 (E) (2) Tax. CCT/79 dated May 16, 1979 (printed at D. No. 442 at page 260 of J. K. Jain's Book), the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department,' Rajasthan, Jaipur has authorised all the assessing authorities to file applications before the Board of Revenue for the purpose of Sec. 15 of the Act. By virtue of the provisions of Sec. 27 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1897, it shall be deemed that this Notification has been issued for the purpose of Sec. 15 (2) of the Act as amended by Rajasthan Act No. 20 of 1984. As such it cannot be said that the C. T. O. , Circle 'b', Udaipur had no authority to file the revision petition.
(3.) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. Even ignoring the said Notification dated May 16, 1979, the C. T. O. , Circle 'b', Udaipur being the assessing authority of the assessee-non-petitioner was the person aggrieved by the order of the Revenue Board within the meaning of Sec. 18 (6) of the Amendment Act. The combined reading of Sec. 15 of the Rajasthan Act as amended and sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 13 of the Amendment Act leaves no doubt that the C. T. O. , Circle 'b', Udaipur was fully competent to file the revision petition even if he was not authorised by the Commissioner for this purpose as he was the person aggrieved with the said order. At the most, he could be required to pay the court-fee of Rs. 100/- as required under sub-sec. (9) of Sec. 13 of the Amendment Act. At this belated stage of the revision, it cannot be rejected on the ground of the non-payment of requisite court-fee. The preliminary objection raised in the revision petition No. 388 of 1985 is hereby repelled. The question involved in both the revisions is whether penalty under Sec. 7-A and interest under Sec. 11-B of the Rajasthan Act could legally be imposed in an assessment under the Central Act. At the commencement of the arguments, I invited the attention of the learned counsel for the parties that this point has been decided by a Division Bench (in which I was a Member) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal in M/s. Dubuwala and Company, Bhilwara vs. C. T. O. , Special Circle, Kota, (2) after considering Narain Harishanker v. State of Rajasthan, (3), Krishna Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (4) C. T. O. v. Hari Charan Lal & Sons (5) Natwarlal v. State of Rajasthan (6) and several other reported judgments. Sri Rajendra Mehta Advocate, the learned counsel for M/s. Lachhman Singh Sampat Singh, very fairly conceded that the definitions of "sales Tax Law" and "general Sales Tax Law" as given in sec. 2 ( 1) of the Central Act and the decision given by a Division Bench of this Court in Natwarlal vs. State of Rajasthan, (supra) were not considered either in Narain Harishanker v. State of Rajasthan, (supra) or in Krishna Mills v. Union of India, (supra ). He also fairly conceded that Krishna Mills v. Union of India, (supra) is based on C. T. O. Special Circle, Jaipur v. Man Industrial Corporation, (7) which has been over-ruled in C. T. O. Special Circle, Jaipur vs. M/s. Harcharan Lal, (supra) Shri Purohit Advocate did not submit any thing on this point. ;