STAR TRADERS Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Original Petitions have come before us on reference made by a learned Single Judge doubting the correctness of the decision in Sivaramakrishnan v. State of Kerala, 1994 KLJ (Tax Cases) 369, in view of the Bench decision in W.A.908/93.

(2.) Writ Appeal 908/93 arose from the decision of a learned Single Judge in O.P.1084/93, reported as Jyothi Laboratories v. Inspecting Asst. Commissioner, 1993 KLJ (Tax Cases) 666. In that case, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, who had State wide jurisdiction, inspected the business premises of the petitioner therein and issued notice alleging failure to keep true and complete accounts as also submission of untrue or incorrect returns constituting offences under S.45A(b) and (d) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". While replying to the notice, the petitioner inter alia raised a contention that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is not competent to initiate action under S.45A because he was not having jurisdiction assigned to any local limits. Learned Single Judge took the view that the fact that the officer who issued the notice is competent authority to initiate proceedings under S.45A cannot be disputed. Dealing with this aspect, the Division Bench opined that proceedings initiated under S.45A by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is proper and their is no reason to refer the proceedings to the assessing authority having jurisdiction over the local limits within which the assessee is having his establishment.

(3.) In 1994 KLJ (Tax Cases) 369, the issue dealt with the same learned Judge who decided 1993 KLJ (Tax Cases) 666, was when S.3(2) speaks of appointment of officers for exercising powers within the local limits assigned to them, can power throughout the State be conferred on an officer The learned Judge took the view that S.3(2) of the Act limited the area of operation of any particular officer to certain local limits and not unlimited throughout the State. Consequently, the learned Judge concluded that confirment of power throughout the State is not in consonance with S.3(2) and is ultra vires of the said provision. In that case, petitioner was an assessee on the files of Sales Tax Officer, Kollam. His place of business and residence were simultaneously searched by Intelligence Officers of Alappuzha and Kottayam. Kottayam officer issued notice initiating proceedings under S.45A of the Act That officer had, as per notification issued by the State, State wide jurisdiction. Notification conferring jurisdiction over the entire State was questioned. Dealing with this aspect, the learned Judge observed: