AMIT BAJAJ ADVOCATE

Section 51 of Punjab VAT Act, 2005 deals with the establishment of Information collection centres or check posts and inspection of goods in transit. Amongst other officials.Excise and Taxation officer(Mobile wing) have been given power u/s 3 of PVAT Act, 2005 to act as designated officer u/s 51. Which means that such Mobile wing officer can levy penalty and make inspection of goods in transit u/s 51 of Punjab VAT Act, 2005.

In every district there is a separate Mobile Wing. In such case the question arises in mind do the powers u/s 51 of ETOs(MW) extend only to their respective districts to which they are posted or it extends to the whole of State of Punjab.

This question has been answered by Punjab VAT Tribunal in Steel India and Co. V. State of Punjab. In this case ETO(MW), Ludhiana inspected and intercepted a vehicle in the jurisdiction of Patiala. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that ETO(MW) Ludhiana has no jurisdiction to intercept the vehicle within the jurisdiction of Patiala District, relying upon the provisions of section 3(2) of Punjab VAT Act, 2005, which are as under:

“The Commissioner shall have jurisdiction over the whole of the State and shall have all the powers and perform all the duties conferred or imposed upon him by or under this Act. All other officers appointed, under sub-section (1), shall exercise such powers as may be conferred upon them by the State Government."

It was argued on behalf of the appellants that it is only the State Govt. which could specify the area of jurisdiction of ETO(MW) as well as AETC(MW) and that the State Government could not further delegate its powers to the commissioner in this behalf.

Rejecting the said contention of the appellant it was held by the Tribunal as under:

"The officers shown in the notifications dated 31.03.2005 and 27.02.2007(i.e notification wherein officers subordinate to Commisioner have been given power u/s 51) being administratively subordinate to the Commissioner, particularly when the latter has been authorized to do so by the competent authority. The power conferred upon the Commissioner in this behalf doesnot fall within the ambit of “sub-delegation”. As per the notification, it is absolute domain and prerogative of the Commissioner to determine the area of jurisdiction of the officers depicted in the table. A carefull perusal of the order dated 30.08.2006 purportedly issued by the E.T.C Punjab would reveal that the ETOs posted in all the mobile wings have been authorized to check the goods u/s 51 of Punjab VAT Act, 2005 anywhere in the whole of the State of Punjab.There seems to be nothing wrong with the conferment of this power upon the Commissioner. In these circumstances, it is held that the ETO(MW) Ludhiana had the jurisdiction to intercept the vehicle in question beyond the limits of Patiala and there is nothing wrong on his part in doing so. It is also held that the A.E.T.C. Mobile wing Ludhiana had the jurisdiction to deal with the case."