K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
1. The appellant challenged Ext.P9, an order passed by the Intelligence Officer, Commercial Taxes, Mattancherry, imposing penalty Rs. 1,40,000/-, exercising his power under Section 15 of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act'). He had two fold contentions. One, the Intelligence Officer did not have jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 15 imposing penalty and two, his vehicle did not come within the purview of the charging section, Section 3. Both these contentions were repelled by the learned Single Judge.
2. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that, Section 15 enabled only the Assessing Authority under the Act to pass an order imposing penalty. Assessing Authority had been defined under Section 2(c) as one appointed under Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 enables Government by notification to appoint officers of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Department, not below the rank of Sales Tax Officer, to be Assessing Authorities, for the purpose of the Act. So the Assessing Authority need not be Sales Tax Officer alone. It can be an Officer in rank of Sales Tax Officer, as duly notified by Government. A notification had been issued in SRO No. 1210/94 appointing sales tax officers, under Sub-section (2) of Section 3, to exercise the powers of Assessing Authority, for the purpose of the Act. So the Sales Tax Officers appointed under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 are the Assessing Authorities under the Act. The 'Sales Tax Officer' has been defined under Section 2(xxii) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act. The definition reads as follows:
'Sales Tax Officer means any person appointed to be a Sales Tax Officer under Section 3'.
Section 3(2) reads as follows:
'The Government shall appoint as many (Joint Commissioners), Deputy Commissioners, Appellate Assistant Commissioners, Inspecting Assistant Commissioners, Sales Tax Officers and such other officers as they think fit for the purpose of performing the functions respectively assigned to them by order under this Act. Such officers shall perform the said functions within such local limits as the Government or any authority or officer empowered by them in this behalf may assign to them.'
3. So, the Sales Tax Officer is one so appointed to perform the functions under the Act. Even going by the definition, Sales Tax Officer is one appointed under Section 3. Sub-section (2) is the relevant provision under Section 3, which includes even the officers appointed for performing the functions as duly empowered by Government. Government had issued a notification under the said provision as SRO No. 335/1963 empowering certain officers to be Sales Tax Officers. It has been duly amended by Annexure-Al notification. SRO No. 1404/89 enabling Intelligence Officers also to exercise the functions of the Sales Tax Officers under the Sales Tax Act. Necessarily, going by the definition of Assessing Authority under S,2(c) and Section 5 of the Act and SRO No. 1210/94 issued under the Act, Intelligence Officer will also come under the Assessing Authority to impose penalty. The officer has therefore jurisdiction. The contention to the contra therefore fails.
4. It is further contended that the vehicle in question has been in his ownership and was registered in Pondicherry 15 months ago and it has been re-registered in Kerala after 15 months of its registration in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. Therefore, going by proviso to Section 3 of the Act, no tax could have been collected. The proviso reads as follows:
'Provided that no tax shall be levied and collected in respect of any motor vehicle which registered in any Union Territory or any other State under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act, 59 of 1988), prior to a period of fifteen months or more from the date on which it is registered in the State.'
Registration of the vehicle in question in the State after 15 months of its registration in the Union Territory of Pondicherry is not disputed by the Government Pleader. But it is contended that inspite of such registration in Pondicherry, vehicle was being used in Mattancherry by the appellant even within the said 15 months. Therefore tax is leviable in terms of Section 3 of the Act.
5. We are unable to accept this contention of the Government Pleader. The use of the vehicle in a particular place is immaterial. When the registration in the State is admitted as later than 15 months of its original registration in Pondicherry, no tax could be levied on the basis of the said proviso. We are satisfied that no tax was payable in respect of the vehicle. There was no evasion of tax to impose penalty.
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is quashed.