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 Sales Tax Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be called as "the Rajasthan Act") read with section 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 section 15 of the Rajasthan Act as amended by this Amendment Act. The second Revision Petition No. 388 of 1985 has been filed under section 13 (6) of the Amendment Act against the order of the Revenue Board, Ajmer, dated 13th November, 1984. The facts giving rise to these revision petitions may be summarised thus.
(2.) IN Revision Petition No. 92 of 1987, an assessment order was passed on June 6, 1975 under the central Act for the period from August 7, 1971 to August 26, 1972. After issuing notice and hearing the assessee, the assessing authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,456 under section 7-AA of the Rajasthan Act read with section 9 (2-A) of the Central Act and levied interest of Rs. 13,597 under section 11-B of the Rajasthan Act read with section 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 penalty 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. 388 of 1985, the assessing authority levied interest of Rs. 27,445 under section 11-B of the Rajasthan Act read with section 9 (2) of the Central Act on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to deposit in time the tax due on the sales effected during the course of inter-State trade and commerce during the period from October 22, 1968 to November 9, 1969 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 the explanation given below sub-section (11) 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 the 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-section (6) of section 13 of the Amendment Act clearly provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the Board may apply to the High Court for revision of such order under section 15 of the Act as amended. He further contended that the impugned assessment order was passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Kota, on June 7, 1977, and by notification 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 Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle 'b', Udaipur, as is clear from the endorsement of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Udaipur made on the back of the letter dated March 26, 1985 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Legal), Commercial Taxes Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur, addressed to the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Kota. He also contended that the assessing authority is the aggrieved person within the meaning of section 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 by which the learned Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur, has authorised all the assessing authorities to file applications under section 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 section 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 16 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 section 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-section (11) of section 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 section 15 of the Act as aforesaid. 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 Doypack Systems P. Ltd. v. Union of India [1989] 65 Comp Cas 1 (SC); 69 CTR (Allied Laws) 6 (SC) para 65 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/sp. /77/5 dated January 17, 1978 (published at item No. 563 at 1281 of N. L. Pokhrana's Manual) that the Commercial Taxes Officer, 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 Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Udaipur, on the back of the letter No. F5 (d)36/tax/legal/commercial/86/1696 dated March 26, 1985 addressed to the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Kota, that by April, 1985, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Udaipur, ceased to be the assessing authority of the assessee-non-petitioner and the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle B, Udaipur, became its assessing authority. By Notification No. F. 3 (E) (2)Tax/cct/79 dated May 16, 1979, 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 section 15 of the Act. By virtue of the provisions of section 27 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1897, it shall be deemed that this notification has been issued for the purpose of section 15 (2) of the Act as amended by Rajasthan Act No. 20 of 1984. As such it cannot be said that the Commercial Taxes Officer, 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 Commercial Taxes Officer, 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 section 13 (6) of the Amendment Act. The combined reading of section 15 of the Rajasthan Act as amended and sub-section (6) of section 13 of the Amendment Act leaves no doubt that the Commercial Taxes Officer, 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 by the said order. At the most, he could be required to pay the court-fee of Rs. 100 as required under sub-section (9) of section 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 section 7-AA and interest under section 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 Duduwala and Company, Bhilwara v. Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Kota 1985 Tax World 334, after considering Narain Harishanker v. State of Rajasthan 1984 RLW 226; 1984 RRD 60 (Raj) (SB), Krishna Mills Ltd. v. Union of India 1984 RLW 243; 1984 TVR 53 (Raj) (SB), Commercial Taxes Officer v. Haricharanlal & Sons [1986] 62 STC 282 (Raj) [fb]; 1984 RLR 946; 1985 RRD 118 (Raj) [fb], Natwarlal v. State of Rajasthan 1980 Tax World 51 (Raj) (DB) and several other reported judgments. Sri Rajendra Mehta, Advocate, the learned counsel for M/s. Laxman Singh Sampat Singh, very fairly conceded that the definitions of "sales tax law" and "general sales tax law" as given in section 2 (i) of the Central Act and the decision given by a Division Bench of this Court in Natwarlal v. State of Rajasthan 1980 Tax World 51, were not considered either in Narain Harishanker v. State of Rajasthan 1984 RLW 226 or in Krishna Mills v. Union of India 1984 RLW 243. He also fairly conceded that Krishna Mills v. Union of India 1984 RLW 243 is based on Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jaipur v. Man Industrial Corporation [1970] 26 STC 169 (Raj) which has been overruled in Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jaipur v. Haricharanlal [1986] 62 STC 282 (Raj) [fb]; 1984 RLR 946 [fb]. Sri Purohit, Advocate, did not submit anything on this point. ;