Judgment AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. On an application made by the dealer under section 48 (2) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 ("the Act", hereinafter), this Court required the Commercial Taxes Tribunal to make a statement of the case and to refer the following question of law for its opinion : 2. " Whether, in absence of any notification vesting power with the respondent No.6, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Bureau of Investigation, under sections 18 and 19 of the Ordinance preceding the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 , respondent No.6 could have imposed penalty for the period January 1, 1980 to March 31, 1980 and April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981 ?" 3. 2. The question arises from a penalty proceeding pertaining to assessment periods January 1, 1980 to March 31, 1980, April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981 and April 1, 1981 to June 28, 1981. It may be noted here that the last of the three periods, (i. e. , April 1, 1981 to June 28, 1981) was subsequent to the coming into force of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 with effect from April 1, 1981 whereas the first two periods in question (January 1, 1980 to March 31, 1980 and April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981) were prior to the coming into force of the Act and the matters relating to levy of sales tax imposition of penalty, etc. , during those periods were governed by the provisions of the Ordinance preceding the Act. 4. 3. The material facts of the case can be stated briefly as follows : On June 30, 1981 the dealers business premises was inspected by a team of Commercial Taxes officials from the Intelligence Branch, Ranchi Division, Ranchi. In course of inspection a number of documents and books of accounts were seized. Following the inspection and seizure and after giving due notice to the dealer, a finding was recorded under section 31 (1) of the Act following which a proceeding was initiated for imposition of penalty under sections 19 (2) (a) and 20 (1) (a) of the Act. In this proceeding an order was passed on September 3, 1981, by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Intelligence Branch, Ranchi Division, Ranchi, imposing an aggregate penalty of Rs.6,20,016.44 for the aforementioned periods. The periodwise break-up of the penalty was as follows : 5. Period Amount of penalty January 1, 1980 to March 31, 1980. In this proceeding an order was passed on September 3, 1981, by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Intelligence Branch, Ranchi Division, Ranchi, imposing an aggregate penalty of Rs.6,20,016.44 for the aforementioned periods. The periodwise break-up of the penalty was as follows : 5. Period Amount of penalty January 1, 1980 to March 31, 1980. . . Rs.1,77,936.84 April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981. . . Rs.2,64,042.88 April 1, 1981 to June 28, 1981. . . Rs.1,73,186.72 6. 4. The dealer preferred an appeal which was dismissed by order dated October 5, 1982, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Ranchi Division, Ranchi. The matter was then taken by the dealer in revision before the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, where it was successful in getting a partial relief. The order dated October 12, 1987, passed by the Tribunal on the dealers revision application is, in parts, quite cryptic and disjointed. It, however, appears that before the Tribunal a submission was advanced that the penalty order was invalid and unsustainable in law as the Commercial Taxes Officer, Intelligence Branch, Ranchi Division, who had passed that order did not have the authority or jurisdiction to pass any orders under sections 19 (2) (a) and 20 (1) (a) of the Act. The submission, questioning the authority of an officer who was a member of the Intelligence Branch to pass an order under sections 19 and 20 of the Act, was made on the basis of the provisions contained in section 51 of the Act which makes provision for constitution of the Bureau of Investigation. It will be appropriate here to take a look at section 51 which, as it stood at the material time, is reproduced below : 7. " 51. Bureau of investigation.- (1) The State Government may, by an order published in the Official Gazette, constitute a Bureau of Investigation and it shall consist of such personnel and such number of officers and such hierarchy of supervision and control as may be specified by the State Government in the said order. 8. (2) An officer of the Bureau of Investigation shall without prejudice to any powers vested in it under sub-section (3) exercise the powers of an authority appointed under section 9 for the purposes of sections 33 and 35 of this part. 9. 8. (2) An officer of the Bureau of Investigation shall without prejudice to any powers vested in it under sub-section (3) exercise the powers of an authority appointed under section 9 for the purposes of sections 33 and 35 of this part. 9. (3) (i) The State Government may by an order published in the Official Gazette, vest an officer of the Bureau of Investigation with the powers of an officer in-charge of a police station under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and with such other powers under different Acts, as it may consider necessary. 10. (ii) The Commissioner may, by an order published in the Official Gazette, authorise an officer of the Bureau of Investigation to exercise the powers of an authority appointed under section 9 in respect of such matters, as may be specified in the order. 11. (4) The Bureau of Investigation shall function under the control and supervision of the Commissioner, and shall discharge duties as may be assigned to it by the Commissioner, including investigation of offences under section 49 of this part. " 12. It may be noted here that the same provisions as quoted above were contained in section 46 of the Ordinance preceding the Act. 13. 5. On behalf of the dealer, it was contended that in terms of sub-section (2) of section 51 an officer of the Bureau could exercise powers for the purposes of sections 33 and 35 alone of the Act and in the absence of any order issued by the Commissioner and published in the official gazette as provided under sub-section (3) (ii), authorising the officer of the Bureau to exercise the powers under sections 19 and 20, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Intelligence Branch, Ranchi was not competent to pass the penalty order against the dealer. 14. 6. The Tribunal apparently accepted the submission and held that the order of penalty in so far as it related to the period after the coming into force of the Act (that is to say, April 1, 1981 to June 28, 1981) was without jurisdiction because an officer of the Intelligence Branch was not legally empowered to make assessment and to pass an order of penalty. The relevant portion of the Tribunals order is as follows : 15. The relevant portion of the Tribunals order is as follows : 15. " The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that, as a matter of fact, the officer of the Intelligence Branch had no power to make the assessment as they have not been empowered to do the same. 16. Although in principle I agree with the contention raised as it appears in section 51, 51 (2) (sic) of the Finance Act an officer of the Bureau of Investigation, without prejudice to any powers vested in it under sub-section (3) exercises the power of any authority appointed under section 9 for the purposes of sections 3 and 35 of the Finance Act. 17. Under the circumstances, a different section is involved in this case and that being so there was no question of exercising the power whatsoever. However, in the facts of the present case the period January 1, 1980 to March 31, 1980 and April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981 relate to the period of Sales Tax Ordinance and that being so there being absolutely no negative covenant or injunction as stated in section 51 (2) of the Bihar Finance Act, the Intelligence Branch was competent to make the assessment as done in this case. 18. This situation further finds strength from the fact that under rule 15 of the Rules of the Ordinance, 1976 a CTO is a prescribed authority for sections 18 and 19 of the Ordinance which is identical to sections 19 and 20 of the Bihar Finance Act. 19. Under the circumstances, the penalty imposed for the periods January 1, 1980 to March 31, 1980 and April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981 is perfectly within legal limits and upheld. 20. The period for April 1, 1981 to June 28, 1981 being the period of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 , in view of section 51 of the Act the Intelligence Branch, in the facts and circumstances of this case was not legally empowered to make the assessment and that being so the penalty relating to period April 1, 1981 to June 28, 1981 is only set aside. " 21. 7. Mr. " 21. 7. Mr. Poddar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the dealer, submitted before this Court that the Tribunal had plainly erred in not accepting the dealers contention in respect of the period prior to April 1, 1980 and it overlooked that section 46 of the Bihar Sales Tax Ordinance, 1976, governing the disputed periods January 1, 1980 to March 31, 1980 and April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981 contained an identical provision as the one contained in section 51 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 , and hence the officer of the Intelligence Branch suffered from the same disability and lack of jurisdiction in passing a penalty order in respect of the aforesaid periods by virtue of sub-sections (2) and (3) (ii) of section 46 of the 1976 Ordinance. 22. 8. It is indeed true that section 46 of the 1976 Ordinance contained the same provisions as contained in section 51 of the Act and in case the dealers contention on the basis of section 51 of the Act was to be accepted in respect of the period April 1, 1981 to June 28, 1981, there was no reason for not accepting the contention for the earlier periods from January 1, 1980 to March 31, 1980 and from April 1, 1980 to March 31, 1981. 23. 9. I am, however, firmly of the opinion that the entire argument questioning the authority and jurisdiction of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Intelligence Branch, to make an assessment and to pass an order under sections 19 (2) and 20 (1) of the Act is founded on a fallacy and stems from a misunderstanding of the provisions contained in section 51 of the Act (section 46 of the 1976 Ordinance ). It must be realised that section 51 does not contain any disabling provision; on the contrary the provisions contained in section 51 are enabling in nature. Sec.51 is intended to confer certain powers, as provided under sub-sections (2) and (3), on those members of the Bureau who may not belong to the Commercial Taxes Department and may not qualify as taxing authorities within the meaning of section 9 of the Act. Sec.51 is intended to confer certain powers, as provided under sub-sections (2) and (3), on those members of the Bureau who may not belong to the Commercial Taxes Department and may not qualify as taxing authorities within the meaning of section 9 of the Act. Sec.51 is not intended to disqualify those members of the Bureau who by virtue of section 9 are taxing authorities and are, therefore, quite competent to exercise the powers and discharge the duties and functions assigned to them under the various provisions of the Act and the Rules and the notifications issued under the Act. 24. 10. Crucial to a correct understanding of the true import of section 51 is sub-section (1) itself which empowers the State Government to constitute a Bureau of Investigation which would consist of "such personnel and such number of officers and such hierarchy of supervision and control as may be specified by the State Government". It is, thus, manifest that the Bureau may not consist only of officials from the Commercial Taxes Department but it may be constituted by taking in, for example, officers from the police force and/or any other Government departments. Those officers, not being taxing authorities under the Act and having no powers to discharge any of the duties and functions under the Act would be of no use unless requisite powers were conferred on them; sub-section (2) of section 51 accordingly confers upon them the power of an authority appointed under section 9 for the purposes of section 33 and section 35 of the Act and makes them fully competent to conduct search and inspection and to effect seizure of accounts, documents and goods, etc. , and to enforce restrictions of movements in violation of the provisions of the Act. Clause (ii) of sub-section (3) provides that the Commissioner may confer some additional powers on those members of the Bureau. It is, thus, plain and clear that section 51 of the Act dealing with the constitution of the Bureau of Investigation is intended to confer certain powers on such members of the Bureau who may not be taxing authorities within the meaning of section 9 or may not be the officials of the Commercial Taxes Department at all. It is, thus, plain and clear that section 51 of the Act dealing with the constitution of the Bureau of Investigation is intended to confer certain powers on such members of the Bureau who may not be taxing authorities within the meaning of section 9 or may not be the officials of the Commercial Taxes Department at all. The section does not intend to divest such members of the Bureau of their powers which they would otherwise possess by virtue of being taxing authorities under section 9 of the Act. 25. 11. The position would be further clarified if one refers to certain provisions of the Act and the Rules. Sec.9 (1) contains a list of officers who are recognised by the Act as taxing authorities; Commercial Taxes Officer figures at clause (f) of section 9 (1 ). Sub-section (2) of section 9 provides that the authorities under section 9 (1) shall exercise the powers and perform the duties assigned to them under the Act within such area as the State Government may by notification specify. Similar provisions were contained in section 8 of the Ordinance preceding the Act. In exercise of power under section 8 (2), the Governor of Bihar, by Notification No. Bikrikar 5162, dated May 9, 1977 defined the local limits of the area within which the authorities enumerated in the notification were to exercise and perform the powers and duties respectively conferred or imposed upon such authorities by or under the Ordinance. Superintendent/assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Intelligence Branch, Ranchi Division (later designated as Commercial Taxes Officer, Intelligence Branch, Ranchi Division) figure at Serial Nos.56 (b), (d) in this notification and the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction for them was defined as the districts of Ranchi and Palamau of Chotanagpur (South) Division and Hazaribagh district of North Chotanagpur Division. 26. 12. Sections 19 and 20 empower the "prescribed authority" to assess or reassess the amount of tax due from the dealer and to pass an order imposing penalty in addition to any taxes. 27. 13. Rule 15 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1976 (equivalent to rule 18 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983) defines the prescribed authority as follows : 28. 27. 13. Rule 15 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1976 (equivalent to rule 18 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983) defines the prescribed authority as follows : 28. " Prescribed authority for the purposes of certain section of the Ordinance.- The Joint Commissioner shall be the prescribed authority for the purposes of section 45 and the Assistant Commissioner, the Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent shall be the prescribed authority for the purpose of sub-sections (8) and (10) of section 3, sub-section (4) of section 6, sub-section (4) of section 12, sections 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 34 and 49. " 29. 14. It is, thus, clear that the Commercial Taxes Officer, Intelligence Branch, Ranchi Division, Ranchi, was fully competent to pass the impugned penalty order by virtue of section 9 (1) and (2) read with the Notification No.5162, dated May 9, 1977 and sections 19 and 20 read with rule 15 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1976 and his powers under the aforesaid provisions of the Act, the Rules and the notification had not ceased simply because he was a member of the Intelligence Branch. As shown above, the Bureau of Investigation (commonly called as the Intelligence Branch) was intended to facilitate and not to frustrate the realisation of the aims and objects of the Act. 30. 15. For the reasons stated above, I find no substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the dealer and I am further of the opinion that the Tribunal committed an error in accepting the dealers submission in so far as the period April 1, 1981 to June 28, 1981 was concerned. However, any dispute regarding this period is not before us in this reference and hence I do not wish to pass any order in that regard. 31. 16. In the result, I answer the reference in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the revenue and against the dealer. 32. 17. Let a copy of this order be sent down to the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. 33. N. N. SINGH, J.- I agree. 34. Reference answered in the affirmative.