CHANNAPPA KORI Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER DHARWAR DISTRICT I HUBLI AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only contention raised in these petitions is that the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer had no competence to make the assessments impugned in these petitions, all of which relate to transactions effected on or before 1st October, 1957. All the assesses concerned are dealers in the Bombay area of the Mysore State. They were assessed to tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. That Act was in force till 1st October, 1957. On 1st October, 1957, the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, came into force. Under section 40(1) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, as well as other enactments in force in the State were repealed. But the proviso to section 40(1) provides :

(2.) Sub-section 2(b) to section 40 says :

(3.) Under section 14 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, "Collector" is authorised to levy sales tax. But under section 44, the "Collector" was empowered to delegate by order in writing any of his powers and duties under that Act to any person appointed under section 3 to assist him. Sales Tax Officers were appointed under section 3 and they were empowered to levy sales tax. After the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, came into force the functions of the "Collector" were made over to the "Commissioner", and the "Sales Tax Officers" were replaced by "Commercial Tax Officers." In Writ Petitions Numbers 555, 556 and 574 of 1962 (Since reported as Krishnasa v. Commercial Tax Officer, Dharwar-III, Dharwar [1962] 13 S.T.C. 940), we have held that the "Commissioner" has been validly designated to take the place of the "Collector" appointed under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. We have also held that the substitution of the "Sales Tax Officer" by the "Commercial Tax Officer" wag validly done. The question now is whether the "Commissioner" had competence to authorise the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer to discharge the functions of the Commercial Tax Officer to any extent.