R S REKHCHAND MOHTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OF the two grounds on which revision is sought, only the first need be considered at this stage. The Sales Tax Commissioner has held that Section 22(6) of the Act does not permit him to review an order passed by his predecessor. The point for decision is whether this view of the law is correct.

(2.) SECTION 22(6) reads as follows :-

(3.) IF the intention of the Legislature in enacting Section 22(6) of the Sales Tax Act was that a distinction should be drawn between orders passed by an officer and orders passed by that officer's predecessor-in-office, there is no doubt that provision would have also been made regarding the circumstances in which a predecessor's order could be reviewed, as has been done in the case of the Land Revenue Act. Otherwise, there is every danger of the provision for review being largely nullified by changes taking place in the office of the Commissioner or other incumbent, from time to time - a contingency that the Legislature would, without doubt, have foreseen. And it may safely be assumed that no Legislature would knowingly or willingly countenance the possibility of any of its enactments being reduced to a nullity. But, as it actually happened, however, the Legislature provided neither for mention of the officer's predecessor-in-office, nor naturally of the circumstances in which review of the predecessor's order was permissible. The implication of Section 22(6) therefore would be to construe "the person" referred to therein by office or by designation and not by name. In other words, all that it means in the context of the present case, is that "the Commissioner may review any order passed by the Commissioner." If, for example, A has been succeeded in office by B, B is competent to review an order passed by A. B's powers of review are not restricted to reviewing orders passed by B alone.