Order: This Revision Petition involves the maintainability of a prosecution launched against the petitioner for the failure on his part to furnish returns of his turn-over under section 13 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. It is admitted that for the period between 30th June, 1954 and 31st March, 1957, the petitioner did not furnish his returns although he was bound to do so as required by section 13 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act and Rule 4 of the Rules made under that Act. On and from 1st October, 1957, the Bombay Sales Tax Act stood repealed by reason of the enactment of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. On 30th April, 1959, the Commercial Tax Officer functioning under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, sanctioned the prosecution of the petitioner in respect of an offence stated to have bee 1 committed by him under section 36 of the Bombay Act. Section 36(b) makes the failure on the part of a dealer to furnish a return an offence of which cognizance could be taken by a Criminal Court. But, under section 37 of the Bombay Act, a Criminal Court was forbidden from taking cognizance of any offence punishable under section 36, except with the previous sanction of the Collector. The petitioner, who before the area in which he was carrying on his business became part of the new State ofMysore and was still in the State ofBombay, was not prosecuted for an offence committed under section 36 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. It was on 30th April, 1959, after the Bombay Sales Tax Act had been repealed by the enactment of the Mysore Sales Tax Act and after the area in which the petitioner was carrying on his business became part of the new State of Mysore, that the Commercial Tax Officer sanctioned the prosecution of the petitioner. Before the Court below, the petitioner contended that since his prosecution for an offence committed under section 36 of the Bombay Act could be commenced only with the sanction of the Collector functioning under the Bombay Sales Tax Act and since no such sanction had been obtained before the petitioner was prosecuted, the proceedings against him had to be dropped as being unsustainable. The Magistrate refused to accede to that contention and so it is, the petitioner presents this Revision Petition to this Court. The Magistrate refused to accede to that contention and so it is, the petitioner presents this Revision Petition to this Court. It is obvious that if the authorities functioning under the Mysore Sales Tax Act wished to prosecute the petitioner in respect of his failure to furnish a return as required by section 13 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, such prosecution should have been preceded by the obtaining of the sanction envisaged by section 37 of the Bombay Act. Now, the authority, who could have accorded such sanction was the Collector functioning under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. After the Bombay Sales Tax Act stood repealed in the areas which became part of the new State of Mysore, the Collector functioning under the Bombay Sales Tax Act ceased to function in the new State of Mysore. It is true that section 40 of the Mysore Act which repealed the Bombay Sales Tax Act contains a provision empowering the State Government to specify the authority or officer who shall be competent to exercise functions exercisable under the repealed enactments of which the Bombay Sales Tax Act was one. If, therefore, the State Government had by notification specified the authority in the new State of Mysore who could exercise the functions of a Collector under section 37 of the Bombay Act, that corresponding authority named by the State Government would have had the power to grant the sanction required by section 37 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act to the prosecution of the petitioner. At one stage Mr. Government Pleader obtained an adjournment in this case to ascertain whether the authority corresponding to the Collector under section 37 of the Bombay Act had been named by the State Government under section 40(2) (b) of the Mysore Act. He tells me to-day that the State Government has not specified anyone as the authority corresponding to the Collector referred to by section 37 of the Bombay Act. He tells me to-day that the State Government has not specified anyone as the authority corresponding to the Collector referred to by section 37 of the Bombay Act. The resultant position therefore is that whereas the petitioner's prosecution could have been sanctioned only by the Collector functioning under the Bombay Act and that Collector could no longer accord any such sanction under the Mysore Sales Tax Act since he is not one of the authorities under the Mysore Act, there is no one to-day in the new State of Mysore in whom the power to accord the sanction required by section 37 of the Bombay Act, resides. The Commercial Tax Officer who is not named by the State Government as the authority corresponding to the Collector referred to in section 37 of the Bombay Act, had therefore no power or authority to sanction the prosecution of the petitioner and the sanction accorded by him therefore, is obviously without the authority of law. But Mr. Government Pleader contended that there is something in section 30 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act which may be of assistance to him. That section which corresponds to section 37 of the Bombay Act directs that no Court shall take cognisance of any offence punishable under sub- section (2) of section 29 except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner. section 29 of the Mysore Act referred to in section 30 enumerate the offences punishable under the Mysore Act and the penalties which may be imposed in respect of those offences. Clause (a) of sub- section (2) of this section makes the failure to submit a return by a dealer a; required by the provisions of the Act, an offence. The meaning of sections 29 and 30 of the Mysore Act therefore is that if a dealer fails to furnish a return although he is required to do so by the provisions of the Mysore Act and a prosecution is proposed to be instituted against him in respect of such failure, such prosecution must be preceded by the sanction of the Commissioner. These two sections are, therefore, clearly inapplicable to offences committed under the Bombay Sales Tax Act since their application is limited to offences committed under the provisions of the Mysore Sales Tax Act. I am not disposed to accede to the argument addressed by Mr. These two sections are, therefore, clearly inapplicable to offences committed under the Bombay Sales Tax Act since their application is limited to offences committed under the provisions of the Mysore Sales Tax Act. I am not disposed to accede to the argument addressed by Mr. Government Pleader that the Commissioner of the Sales Tax Department who is the head of that Department must be regarded to be the repository of the power to accord sanctions to prosecutions of dealers even in respect of offences committed by them under the Bombay Act. I find no provision in the Mysore Sales Tax Act justifying any such conclusion. In my opinion, the prosecution commenced against the petitioner having been instituted without the authority of law is liable to be quashed and it is so ordered. S.V.S.-----Petition allowed.