GOLLAPUDI PULLAYYA COMPANY FIRM CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT GUNTUR Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiff (a firm) in O.S. No. 200 of 1948 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur. It instituted the suit for a declaration that the order of assessment made against it under the Madras General Sales Tax Act by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Guntur, dated 28th March, 1947, is null and void and for recovery of the sum Rs. 3,215-3-0 which had been collected from it by the Government pursuant to that order. The plaintiff-firm had a licence as a commission agent under section 8 of the Madras General Sales Tax Act and was also doing independent business of its own. It submitted its return for the year 1945-46 on 31 March, 1946 and showed its commission agency turnover therein as Rs. 3,07,394-4-6, for which it claimed exemption. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, was not satisfied with the return and a notice Exhibit B-3, dated 5th March, 1947, was issued under rule 9 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules, 1039, by the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Guntur, intimating the plaintiff that the return submitted appeared to be incorrect and incomplete and that it should produce its accounts and prove the correctness and completeness of the return at the time and place specified therein. One of the partners of the firm duly appeared before the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, produced the accounts and offered his explanations. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer passed the assessment order now in question on 28th March, 1947. The order was confirmed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Guntur, on 15th July, 1947 and also by the Board of Revenue on 24th February, 1948, (Vide Exhibits A-12 and A-16, respectively). The present suit was thereupon instituted on 6th November, 1948, impeaching the validity of the order of assessment.

(2.) In the present second appeal, three points are made by Mr. Ramanarasu, learned counsel, on behalf of the appellant-firm. The first contention urged by him is that the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue the notice Exhibit B-3 under rule 9 above mentioned and therefore the order of assessment is wholly illegal. His contention may be elaborated thus: Rule 9 of the Madras General Sales Tax (Turnover and Assessment) Rules authorises only the "assessing authority" to give such notice and the words "assessing authority "are defined in section 2(0-2) of the Act as meaning "any person authorised by the State Government to make any assessment under this Act". The State Government issued G.O. No.8, published in the Fort. St. George Gazette, dated the 15th September, 1939, authorising the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer to exercise the powers of an assessing authority in the case of dealers whose turnover exceeds Rs. 20,000. The contention is that a Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer is not a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer within the meaning of this Government order. Counsel for the appellant relies upon a statement made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer himself as D.W. 1 in the case to this effect : "A Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer has no power to assess. ... As Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, I could not issue Exhibit A-21 (which is equal to Exhibit B-3). When I signed Exhibit A-21 I was not Deputy Commercial Tax Officer".

(3.) In my opinion, there is no force in this argument. It seems to me that the statements made by the officer D.W. i in the witness-box are based upon a misapprehension. It is to be noticed that the Officer was first appointed a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and was later on assigned the Special Duty of checking the accounts of assessees and was therefore called a 'Special' Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. The word 'special' was added to his official designation in order to describe the nature of the duties which were departmentally assigned to him. For the purposes of the Act, he was a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer but by the directions of his superiors, he was to perform only particular specified duties. The fact that he was assigned by a departmental superior a particular task does not, in my opinion, detract from the jurisdiction that vested in him under the Act by virtue of the office which he held viz., that of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. When the officer said in the witness-box that he had no power to assess, he only meant that departmentally he could not do so, because he would be doing something which he was not officially authorised to do. That however does not alter his position under the Act. In my view the word ' special' is only descriptive and does not imply that the Officer is other than a Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. I therefore think that he could issue Exhibit B-3.