Judgment N. L. Untwalia, C. J. 1. This is a reference made by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, under Sec.33 (1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Act" ). The question of law referred for decision of this court runs as follows: whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of assessment dated 30th April, 1961, passed by Sri R. S. P. Sinha, Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Gaya, was valid in law when he did not examine the accounts himself. 2. Most of the relevant facts may be stated from the statement of the case and they are these: There was an inspection of the business premises of the dealer at 6 p. m. on 21st. November, 1959, when besides rokar, satti bahi and stock register, 120 purjas were seen and signed by the inspecting officer. The purjas were serially numbered. In response to the notice of hearing the dealer produced books of account. Eventually the books of account and the loose purjas were examined on several dates by the prescribed authority under the Act who was previously the Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Gaya. The holder of this office at that time was one Shri R. Y. Sinha. He examined the books of account and purjas with the assistance of Shri K. K. Sahay, Inspector, Commercial Taxes, Gaya. On the transfer of Shri R. Y. Sinha, the assessment record was taken over by Shri Ram Sundar Prasad Sinha, Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Gaya, on 31st October, 1960. On that date he passed an order that he would like to hear the dealer on 1st December, 1960. After some adjournments the dealer appeared on 17th April, 1961. On this date the following order was passed by Shri R. S. P. Sinha: hazri filed today. Dealer heard. For orders on 30th April, 1961. " Exhibit A to the statement of the case is the order sheet of the assessment proceeding for the period 2nd March, 1960, to 30th April, 1961, the date of the passing of the final order of assessment. The assessment order has been annexed as exhibit B to the statement of the case. A portion of the assessment order dated 30th April, 1961, has been quoted in paragraph 3 of the statement of the case. 3. The assessment order has been annexed as exhibit B to the statement of the case. A portion of the assessment order dated 30th April, 1961, has been quoted in paragraph 3 of the statement of the case. 3. The dealer filed an appeal against the assessment order, but it was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 23rd August, 1965 (exhibit D ). A first revision was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, who dismissed it by his order dated 13th July, 1966 (exhibit F ). Before the Deputy Commissioner one of the points raised by the dealer was that the books of account having been examined by Shri R. Y. Sinha, Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Gaya, with the assistance of Shri K. K. Sahay, Inspector, the order of assessment passed by Shri R. S. P. Sinha on 30th April, 1961, was illegal. The learned Deputy Commissioner rejected this argument by observing that proper opportunities were given by the prescribed authority who passed the assessment order, the dealer was heard by him on the reports furnished by the checking officer and there was nothing on the record to suggest that the assessing officer did not apply his mind or did not give due consideration. 4. In second revision filed before the Tribunal, one of the points raised was whether the order of the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Shri R. S. P. Sinha, was legal, valid and in accordance with law. The Tribunal held that under Sec.16 (2) (b) of the Act the prescribed authority, i. e. , the assessing officer shall, after examining the accounts and other evidence produced by the dealer or such other evidence as the prescribed authority by notice in writing may require to be produced on specified points, assess the amount of tax due from the dealer. The Tribunal, therefore, was of the opinion that it was obligatory on the part of the assessing officer to examine the accounts. He may get it examined by an Inspector of Commercial Taxes as provided in Rule 14 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called "the Rules"), but finally he has to examine the account books personally also. In the opinion of the Tribunal, an assessing officer could not pass an assessment order on the basis of the checking notes of another officer or an Inspector. In the opinion of the Tribunal, an assessing officer could not pass an assessment order on the basis of the checking notes of another officer or an Inspector. The Tribunal found that Shri R. S. P. Sinha did not examine the accounts personally after the same had been examined by Shri K. K. Sahay or by Shri R. Y. Sinha. In that view of the matter, it was of the opinion that the assessment order was not in accordance with the mandatory provision laid down in Sec.16 (2) (b) of the Act. The orders of the authorities below were set aside and the case was remanded back. 5. On being asked to state a case to this court, the Tribunal has done it and referred the question of law already stated, 6. Mr. Lakshman Saran Sinha, the learned counsel for the commercial taxes department, endeavoured to take us through the order sheet (exhibit A), the assessment order (exhibit B) and the other orders to persuade us to hold that, in fact, the account books were examined by Shri R. S. P. Sinha, Superintendent of Commercial Taxes also. We did not feel persuaded to go into this question as, in our opinion, the ambit of the question of law referred was too narrow to permit us in this reference case to go into the question urged in the first instance on behalf of the department. If the department felt aggrieved by the finding recorded by the Tribunal against it on that question, it was necessary for the Commissioner to ask the Tribunal to state a case on a question of law in relation to that finding. It appears from the reference application, however, that no such attempt was made by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Even assuming that the bald question of law which the Commissioner wanted the Tribunal to refer could cover this point, it is plain that the Tribunal refused to cover it within the narrow question which it did refer. If the Commissioner was aggrieved by it, he ought to have come to this court under Sec.33 (2) of the Act for the purpose of asking the Tribunal to state a case on a question of law in relation to the finding which was assailed before us. If the Commissioner was aggrieved by it, he ought to have come to this court under Sec.33 (2) of the Act for the purpose of asking the Tribunal to state a case on a question of law in relation to the finding which was assailed before us. That having not been done, we did not proceed to examine as to whether, in fact, Shri R. S. P. Sinha had examined the account books himself or not. 7. But that does not mean that Shri R. S. P. Sinha did not examine anything or did not give any opportunity to the assessee in the matter of the impugned assessment. It would appear from the order dated 23rd March, 1961, and the final order dated 17th April, 1961, in the order sheet (exhibit A) and the assessment order that Shri R. S. P. Sinha did pointedly bring to the notice of the dealer the checking notes of the Inspector, Shri K. K. Sahay, and asked him to produce complete account books. On the wordings of the order dated 17th April, 1961, I shall assume in favour of the dealer that he did produce the account books before Shri R. S. P. Sinha, he was heard in the matter and orders were reserved to be passed on 30th April, 1961. Although the order does not specifically record as to what papers were examined by the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes on 17th April, 1961, it would appear from the assessment order (exhibit B) that he did examine a number of papers, asked the dealer to explain many matters with reference to the report of Shri K. K. Sahay, which the dealer failed to explain, and that led him to pass the impugned assessment order on 30th April, 1961. In the light of these bare facts I proceed to examine as to whether the view of law taken by the Tribunal is correct. 8. Taxing authorities and Inspectors are to be appointed by the State Government under Sec.8 of the Act. The classes of authorities to be appointed by the State Government for carrying out the purposes of the Act are enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of Sec.8 (1), which include Superintendent of Commercial Taxes as also Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes. 8. Taxing authorities and Inspectors are to be appointed by the State Government under Sec.8 of the Act. The classes of authorities to be appointed by the State Government for carrying out the purposes of the Act are enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of Sec.8 (1), which include Superintendent of Commercial Taxes as also Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes. Assessment of tax is to be made in accordance with Sec.16 and there the expression used in the various sub-sections is the "prescribed authority". Prescribed authority for the purpose of Sec.16 of the Act prescribed by the Rules are the Assistant Commissioner, the Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes. The prescribed authority is to give a notice to the dealer under Sec.16 (2) (a) to attend in person or through an authorised representative on a date to be specified and to produce or cause to be produced any accounts or other evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of his return. Sec.16 says: 16. Assessment of tax.-- (1) If the prescribed authority is satisfied without requiring the presence of, or the production of accounts and other evidence by, the registered dealer, that the returns furnished by such dealer in respect of any period are correct and complete, the prescribed authority shall assess the amount of tax due from the dealer on the basis of such returns. (2) (a) If the prescribed authority is not satisfied, without requiring the presence of, or the production of accounts and other evidence by, the registered dealer that the returns furnished by such dealer in respect of any period are correct and complete, the prescribed authority shall serve on such dealer a notice in the prescribed manner requiring him on a date and at a time and place to be specified therein, either to attend in person or through an authorised representative or to produce or to cause to be produced any accounts and other evidence on which such dealer may rely in support of such returns. (b) On the day specified in the notice or as soon thereafter as may be, the prescribed authority shall, after examining the accounts and other evidence produced by the dealer and such other evidence as the prescribed authority may, by notice in writing, require on specified points, assess the amount of tax due from the dealer. (b) On the day specified in the notice or as soon thereafter as may be, the prescribed authority shall, after examining the accounts and other evidence produced by the dealer and such other evidence as the prescribed authority may, by notice in writing, require on specified points, assess the amount of tax due from the dealer. (3) If a registered dealer, having furnished returns in respect of a period, fails to comply with all the terms of the notice under subsection (2) or if the accounts and other evidence produced by him are, in the opinion of the prescribed authority, incorrect, incomplete or unreliable, either wholly or partly, the said authority shall assess, to the best of its judgment, the amount of tax due from the dealer. (4) If a registered dealer does not furnish returns in respect of any period within the prescribed or extended period, the prescribed authority shall, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, assess, to the best of its judgment, the amount of tax due from the dealer. (5) If upon information which has come into his possession the prescribed authority is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist to believe that any dealer has been liable to pay tax under this Act, in respect of any period, and has nevertheless wilfully failed to apply for a registration certificate, or having so applied failed to furnish any particulars or information required for the purposes of Sec.9, the prescribed authority shall, after giving the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard, assess, to the best of its judgment, the amount of tax, if any, due from the dealer in respect of such period and all subsequent periods; and the prescribed authority may direct that the dealer shall pay, by way of penalty, in addition to the amount of tax so assessed, a sum not exceeding one and a half times that amount: provided that no proceeding for such assessment shall be initiated except before the expiry of eight years from the expiry of the period to which it relates. (6) If the prescribed authority is satisfied that goods have been sold at a price higher than that shown by the dealer, he may determine the market sale price of the goods prevailing at the time of the sale and proceed to assess the tax on such price. (6) If the prescribed authority is satisfied that goods have been sold at a price higher than that shown by the dealer, he may determine the market sale price of the goods prevailing at the time of the sale and proceed to assess the tax on such price. (7) Any assessment made or penalty imposed under this section shall be without prejudice to any action which is or may be taken under Sec.38. 9. It would thus be seen that for the purpose of either passing an order under Sec.16 (2) (b) or under Sec.16 (3) the prescribed authority does not mean the person who may be the holder of the office of the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent. If the Assistant Superintendent was transferred from Gaya, then the Superintendent would be in-charge of his files and would be the prescribed authority for the purpose of Sec.16 of the Act. There is nothing in the Act or in the Rules to indicate that the prescribed authority from start to finish for the purpose of Sec.16 of the Act must be the same person holding the office of the prescribed authority. 10. Section 46 of the Act empowers the State Government to make Rules for "all matters expressly required or allowed by the Act to be prescribed and generally for carrying out the purposes of this Act and regulating the procedure to be followed, forms to be adopted and fees to be paid in connection with proceedings under this Act and all other matters ancillary or incidental thereto". In pursuance of this power rules 14 and 15 have been prescribed as forming part of the Rules and they read as follows: 14. Examination of accounts and hearing of evidence by Inspectors.-- If the authority prescribed in Rule 12 so desires, it may require an Inspector to examine the accounts, registers and documents and hear other evidence, if any, produced by or on behalf of a dealer. Examination of accounts and hearing of evidence by Inspectors.-- If the authority prescribed in Rule 12 so desires, it may require an Inspector to examine the accounts, registers and documents and hear other evidence, if any, produced by or on behalf of a dealer. After such examination and hearing, the Inspector shall furnish to the said authority a report containing- (i) a precis of the points urged by or on behalf of the dealer, (ii) a record of the result of examination of the accounts, registers and documents and hearing of other evidence produced by or on behalf of the dealer, and (iii) his opinion as to the amount of tax, if any, to which the dealer should be assessed.15. Order of assessment or reassessment.-- The authority prescribed in Rule 12 shall, after taking into consideration the report, if any, submitted by the Inspector and also any information otherwise received and after hearing such evidence as the dealer may produce, assess or reassess the amount of tax, if any, payable by the dealer under the Act and shall briefly but clearly record the reasons on which he bases the assessment or reassessment, as the case may be. The amount of tax estimated and collected in advance under Sub-section (10) of Sec.3 and the amount paid with the returns, if any, shall be set off against the amount assessed or reassessed as being payable by the dealer. 11. It would thus be seen that if the prescribed authority so desires it may require an Inspector to examine the accounts, registers and documents and hear other evidence. In this case Shri R. Y. Sinha, the Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, who was the prescribed authority, did so desire. Then Rule 15 enjoins on the prescribed authority to consider the report submitted by the Inspector and after hearing such evidence as the dealer may produce, to pass an assessment or reassessment order. The plain meaning of rules 14 and 15, therefore, is that if the account books have been examined in detail by the Inspector then it is for the dealer to produce his evidence in the shape of account books or otherwise at the hearing to contradict the report of the Inspector. The plain meaning of rules 14 and 15, therefore, is that if the account books have been examined in detail by the Inspector then it is for the dealer to produce his evidence in the shape of account books or otherwise at the hearing to contradict the report of the Inspector. Unless the dealer produces the account books and evidence and asks the prescribed authority to examine them further to contradict the report of the Inspector, there is no obligation on the prescribed authority to verify the report of the Inspector with reference to the account books and the other evidence. Ordinarily and generally, the prescribed authority is expected to do so for its own satisfaction; but it is one thing to say that it should do so and the other to say that it must do so. In the instant case, on consideration of the report of the Inspector, Shri K. K. Sahay, Shri R. S. P. Sinha did ask the dealer to produce his account books. The dealers stand is that they were produced. The assessment order shows that many matters and materials were examined by the Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Shri R. S. P. Sinha. In this background it is difficult to uphold the view of the Tribunal that unless it could clearly be shown that the account books were personally examined by Shri R. S. P. Sinha, his assessment order was illegal and bad in law. In my opinion, merely on that account the order could not be held to be bad and illegal. Of course, the Tribunal has not gone through and examined the merits of the assessment order as upheld by the appellate authority and the first revisional authority and by taking an erroneous view of law it merely remanded the case. After the question of law referred to us is answered against the assessee, there does not seem to be any difficulty that the assessee will succeed in persuading the Tribunal to hear his revision on merits. But the question of law referred to us, I find no escape from the position, has got to be answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. 12. But the question of law referred to us, I find no escape from the position, has got to be answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. 12. For the reasons stated above, I hold that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of assessment dated 30th April, 1961, passed by Shri R. S. P. Sinha, Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Gaya, was valid in law even though it has been held by the Tribunal that he did not examine the accounts himself. Merely on that ground the order was not illegal and bad. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.