Nathu Ram and Co. vs State and Others

P.N. Shinghal, C.J.—As this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be disposed of on a short point on which there is not much controversy before us, it is not necessary to state the other facts which do not bear on the point which has been canvassed before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

It will be sufficient to say that a revision petition was filed by the respondent State, to the Board of Revenue, against the order of Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Jaipur, dated March 20, 1965 by which the petitioner''s appeal was allowed and the sales tax was levied at 4 per cent. That petition was heard by a learned single member of the Board of Revenue, and was decided by his judgment Ex. 4 dated August 29, 1966. The learned member allowed the revision and directed reassement in accordance with his judgment. A special appeal was filed before the Board against the aforesaid judgment of the learned single member dated August 29, 1966, but it is not in controversy before us that it has since been withdrawn. The point which has been canvassed before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that u/s 14(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 as it stood at the relevant time, it was not permissible for the learned single member to hear and dispose of the revision petition.

It is not in controversy that Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Sales Tax Act read as follows at the relevant period of time,-

Where an application for revision has been made under Sub-section (1) or (2), it shall be heard and disposed of by a bench of not less than two members of the Board of Revenue.

It has thus been argued by the petitioner''s learned Counsel that the impugned judgment Ex. 4 dated August 29, 1966 is illegal and should be quashed because it has been passed by a learned single member and not by a bench of not less than two members of the Board as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 14.

Learned Additional Advocate General has nothing to say against the correctness of the above contention.

The writ petition is allowed, the impugned judgment of the Board of Revenue dated August 29, 1966 is quashed, and the Board is directed to hear and dispose of the revision application of the petitioner in accordance with the law. It follows that the order of assessment Ex. 7 passed by Commercial Taxes Officer, ''B'' Circle, Jaipur, dated October 19, 1966 is also quashed. Costs here will abide the final result.