KISANLAL RADHAKISAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant made an application to the Sales Tax Commissioner under the old unamended Rule 25 of the Sales Tax Rules, claiming exemption from payment of tax on the ground that he dealt exclusively in products of cottage and home industries. The Commissioner rejected the application and the result is this appeal.

(2.) RULE 25 reads as follows :

(3.) NOW under Rule 53(4) of the Sales Tax Rules "an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner" lies to the Board of Revenue. To have a proper idea of the implications of this sub-rule, it is necessary to examine the three preceding sub-rules. The first two sub-rules provide for appeals against original orders of assessment, passed by subordinate officers of the department. In these matters, the final appellate authority is the Commissioner himself. Sub-rule (3) provides for appeals "against any order under this Act, other than assessment with or without penalty" passed by officers of the department subordinate to the Commissioner. The final appellate authority under this sub-rule is also the Commissioner. Sub-rule (4) is a combination into one of the three preceding sub-rules in regard to original orders passed by the Commissioner. In other words, sub-rule (4) must be construed as providing for appeals "against any order under this Act, including original assessment orders" passed by the Commissioner. The learned counsel for the State contends that the sub-rule must be regarded as providing for appeals only against judicial orders and, in his view, an order passed by the Commissioner granting or declining to grant exemption under Rule 25 is not a judicial order, but an administrative order. Apart from what I what I have said of my view of sub-rule (4), I must note that neither the Sales Tax Act nor the Sales Tax Rules make any distinction between judicial orders and administrative orders. Such distinction, in fact, would be artificial and unnecessary. As I read the Act, the Commissioner is not strictly a court of law, but an administrative Tribunal whose functions include the decision of question of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature. In arriving at such decisions, he must be guided by certain judicial principles. His orders, therefore, are those of an Administrative Tribunal which follows or which ought to follow certain judicial principles. Against all such orders under the Act, appeals would lie to the Board of Revenue. The present appeal, therefore, is competent.