SUPREME MOTORS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Member, Additional Sales Tax Tribunal, has stated this case and referred the following two question for opinion of the court on the assessee's application :

(2.) THE assessee is a dealer in automobile and motor cycle parts, its place of business being located at Cuttack. Its place of business was inspected by an inspector of the department who verified its cash position by checking the cash box. Dispute was raised as to the competence of the inspecting officer verifying the cash box. That has given rise to the first question. Since the accounts were rejected by reference to the result of the cash verification, the second question has also been mooted depending upon the answer on the first question.

(3.) THE Commissioner has delegated his authority under this section to his subordinates including the inspector. Therefore, the inspectors, in view of the delegated power, are also entitled to exercise power under sun-section (2) of section 16 of the Act. Section 16, however, does not authorise a verification of the cash position, and as there is a statutory provision indicating the power exercisable in the matter, it must follow that there are no additional powers which can be exercised. We are prepared to accept the assessee's contention that sub-section (2) of section 16 of the Act covers the entire field and no other power not provided for is exercisable in regard to the same matter. Reference has been made to single Judge decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Mariyala Venkateswara Rao, In re ([1951] 2 S. T. C. 167), where the scope of section 14 (2) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1939 was under consideration. That provision appears to be akin to section 16 (2) of the Orissa Act. It is stated by the counsel for both sides that there is no other precedent on the question. The only other case we have come across is another single Judge decision of the Madras High Court in P. K. Adimoolam Chettiar, In re ([1957] 8 S. T. C. 741), where Mariyala Venkateswara Rao, In re ([1951] 2 S. T. C. 167), has been referred to. But the question arising in this case was not examined. We are inclined to think that the view expressed by the learned single Judge correctly states the legal position and the inspecting officer of the department was, therefore, not entitled to variety the case position with reference to the cash available in the box. The first question, therefore, has to be answered in favour of the assessee.