ONWARD TRADING CO Vs. TAHSILDAR FORT TONDIARPET MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is facing revenue recovery proceedings in the State of Tamil Nadu for arrears of sales tax, which became due in the State of Maharashtra. The notice impugned is that of the first respondent, dt. 9-1-1980 calling upon the petitioner to pay the arrears of sales tax dues referred to above. Mr. K. Ramagopal learned counsel for the petitioner, would urge three points, covering interference in writ jurisdiction. The first point is for the sales tax arrears which became due in the State of Maharashtra the process under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Act 1 of 1890) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' cannot be initiated here in the State of Tamil Nadu. Such a contention was raised and was repelled in Tarachand v. Tahsildar (1983) 52 STC 324). In view of the above pronouncement, I am not able to sustain this contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Secondly, learned counsel would submit that the certificate for recovery under the Act has been admittedly issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax III Bombay City division, under the power delegated to him by the Collector of Bombay and the present sales tax arrears cannot be characterised as arrears of land revenue payable to such Collector so as to enable him to delegate the power, to issue the certificate, since the power of delegation is available only under S.3 of the Act, in respect of an arrear of land revenue or a sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue, payable to the Collector and the power of delegation is not available in respect of any other sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue by any public officer other than the Collector or by any local authority, as set out in Section 5 of the Act. The distinction which the learned counsel wants to make is that while Section 3 of the Act contemplates an arrear of land revenue or a sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue payable to a Collector in respect of which under Sub-Section (2) thereof there could be a delegation of power with reference to the issuance of the requisite certificate, in contrast under S.5 of the Act, no such power of delegation is available and permissible in respect of any sum recoverable as an arrears of land revenue by any public officer other than the Collector by any local authority. Section 3 reads thus :

(3.) Thirdly, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that assuming that the Collector has got the power of delegation the delegation could be only for the purpose of signing the certificate and nothing more and the certificate should emanate from the Collector only. Section 3(2) of the Act, which empowers delegation and which by the force of the language of Section 5 will certainly be attracted to proceedings under S.5 speaks about the collector signing the certificate made by him and it further speaks about the delegation of this duty. This duty in the context could only mean the composite duty of making and signing the certificate; and not only the duty of bare signing the certificate already made by the Collector. To say that the power of delegation must be confined only to the signing of the certificate, to be made by the Collector would be practically negating the very intendment and purpose of the provision of delegation. For a bare signing of a certificate, already made by the Collector, I do not think the provision of delegation was enacted. Hence, I am not able to accept this contention.