ANTONY Vs. TAHSILDAR ALWAYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tahsildar, Alwaye received a certificate issued by the Collector of Coimbatore under S. 3 (1) of the Indian Revenue. Recovery Act stating that a sum of Rs. 4158. 83 being sales tax arrears is due from the petitioner and requesting the recovery of the same by the District Collector, ernakulam as if it were an arrear of land revenue which had accrued in his district and for remitting it to the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, pollachi. THE said certificate of the Collector, Coimbatore was forwarded to the Tahsildar by the District Collector, Ernakulam along with an authorisation letter dated 312 71 to collect the amount. On receipt of the same revenue recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act was initiated by the Tahsildar who directed the village officer, Manikamangalam to realise the amount from the defaulter. Notice under S. 7 of the Kerala Revenue recovery Act was also issued by the Tahsildar to the defaulter to be served through the village officer. '

(2.) ON receipt of the same the petitioner defaulter has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents, namely, the Tahsildar, Alwaye and village officer, Kalady from taking proceedings under the Central Revenue Recovery Act or the Kerala Revenue recovery Act against the petitioner for the realisation of the alleged sales tax arrears due from the petitioner under the Tamilnad General Sales Tax Act and for consequential reliefs.

(3.) THE Tahsildar who is taking proceedings for collection of the amount is not a Collector as defined under the Revenue Recovery Act. THE certificate concerned has originated and is initiated under the Central Revenue recovery Act, and therefore though the process of collection can be under the kerala Revenue Recovery Act, as per S. 3 and 5 of the Central Act, an officer who is competent to make the collection under the Central Revenue Recovery Act can alone proceed to recover the tax under the same. Mr. Narayana Pillai is also certainly right in contending that even assuming the Tahsildar could collect, there is no delegation of the powers of the Collector to the Tahsildar under S. 73 of the Kerala Act in the instant case. Mr. Sankaran has produced before me an authorisation letter sent by the Collector to the Tahsildar, which only asks the Tahsildar to collect the amount. That is not a delegation of the collector's function to the Tahsildar. Under S. 73 of the Kerala Revenue recovery Act the Collector will have to authorise any officer to exercise any of the powers or perform the functions conferred or imposed on him under the act. No doubt, any of the powers or any of the functions conferred or imposed on him can be delegated, but there should be a proper delegation which would indicate what exactly are the powers which are conferred on the Collector that have been delegated or what are the functions that are imposed on him that had been delegated to a subordinate officer. THE letter shown by the government pleader would not satisfy this. It does not appear from it that there has been any delegation of any of the powers or functions of the Collector to the tahsildar who has initiated proceedings in this case.