RAMKRISHNA PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against an order of the Revenue Commissioner (now Member, Board of Revenue) in Certificate Revision Case No. 37 of 1951-52. The material facts are as follows.

(2.) The applicant is a contractor of the public Works. Department engaged in the business of construction of buildings, repairs of roads, and other works. The Sales Tax Officer of the 6overnment of Orissa issued a requisition to the Certificate Officer of Cuttack in September, 1949, for the realisation of a sum of Rs. 406/3/- from the applicant as arrear sales tax due for the quarters ending on 31-12-47 and 31-3-48. The Certificate Officer on receipt of that requisition started Certificate Case No. 404-M of 1949-50 and issued the usual notice under Section 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (Act IV of 1914). The applicant thereupon filed an objection under Section 9 of that Act denying his liability to pay the said sum either in whole or in part. The Certificate Officer by an order dated 13-1-50 rejected the applicant's petition. Thereupon the applicant filed an appeal to the Collector which was registered as Certificate Appeal No. 134 of 1950-51.

(3.) While the said certificate appeal was pending the Sales Tax Officer issued another requisition for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,898/11/- from the applicant as arrear sales tax for the two quarters from 30-6-48 to 31-12-49. The Certificate Officer started another case No. 808-M of 1950-51 on the basis of this requisition and issued the usual notice under Section 7 of the B & O Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914. In respect of this certificate case also the applicant filed a petition under Section 9 of that Act denying his liability to pay either the whole, or in any case, a portion of the sum. The Certificate Officer rejected this petition also by an order dated 23-3-51. Thereupon the applicant preferred an appeal (Certificate Appeal No. 1 of 1951-52) against the order before the Collector. The two certificate appeals were heard analogously by the Additional Collector on 30-5-51 and they were both dismissed, The applicant then filed a revision (No. 7 of 1951-52) before the Revenue Commissioner which was also rejected mainly on the ground that the Certificate Officer exercised his discretion properly in accepting the assessment of sales tax made by the Sales Tax Officer as sufficient for deciding the liability of the applicant and that consequently there was no refusal on his part to exercise his Jurisdiction under Section 10 of the B & O Public Demands Recovery Act as alleged by the applicant in his revision petition before him.