Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, who is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of country liquor, has filed the present writ application for quashing the letter dated June 5, 2002, as contained in annexure 4, wherein the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna (respondent No. 1) has directed the assessing officers to disallow the claim of discount on licence fee and excise duty as claimed by the persons dealing in country liquor and spiced country liquor and in case discount has been allowed then steps should be taken to file revision before him under the provisions of sec. 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. 3. In view of the nature of challenge to the notification, it is not necessary to state facts in detail. The only submission which has been advanced by Dr. Debi Prosad Pal, learned Senior Counsel is that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has no power to issue direction to the assessing authority under the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Rules, who exercises quasi judicial power under the Act. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the Commissioner has already clarified the matter by issuing a direction that annexure 1 and other directions issued by him are in the nature of guidelines and not in the nature of directions. 5. The only question which falls for consideration is as to whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has power to issue such direction to the assessing authority under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Act contains provisions with regard to fixing the liability of payment of tax and the machinery for recovery of the same. There is provision for assessment of tax, appeal and revision against the said order. It is not disputed at the bar and in our view rightly that the power exercised by the assessing authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority are quasi judicial powers. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not pointed out any provision under the Act or the Rules which empowers the Commis-sioner of Commercial Taxes to issue any direction much less direction to the authorities while exercising quasi judicial functions. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not pointed out any provision under the Act or the Rules which empowers the Commis-sioner of Commercial Taxes to issue any direction much less direction to the authorities while exercising quasi judicial functions. 6. Law on this point is well-settled that when power is vested to the authorities to exercise judicial or quasi judicial powers, the superior authority has no jurisdiction to issue any direction as issuance of such direction amounts to interference in the discharge of judicial and quasi judicial functions. In this connection, reference may be made to two decisions of the apex Court which has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In Mahadayal Premchandra V/s. Commercial Tax Officer [1958] 9 STC 428 (SC) ; AIR 1958 SC 667 , the Commercial Tax Officer during the assessment proceeding solicited instructions from the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter he passed assessment order. Dealing with the said matter, the apex Court held that the instructions given by the Assistant Commissioner had vitiated the entire proceedings as the procedure adopted was unfair and was calculated to undermine the confidence of the public in the impartial and fair administration of the Sales Tax Department. 7. In the case of Orient Paper Mills Ltd. V/s. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 48 , it has been held that the Collector under the Central Excise exercises quasi judicial power and the Central Board of Revenue cannot issue any direction controlling the assessment proceeding. Such direction does not bind the assessing authority and in case the authority acts on the basis of the said direction, the assessment proceedings are vitiated. It has been held in para 8 of the judgment as follows : "8. If the power exercised by the Collector was a quasi judicial power--as we hold it to be--that power cannot be controlled by the directions issued by the Board. No authority however high placed can control the decision of a judicial or a quasi judicial authority. That is the essence of our judicial system. There is no provision in the Act empowering the Board to issue directions to the assessing authorities or the appellate authorities in the matter of deciding disputes between the persons who are called upon to pay duty and the department. That is the essence of our judicial system. There is no provision in the Act empowering the Board to issue directions to the assessing authorities or the appellate authorities in the matter of deciding disputes between the persons who are called upon to pay duty and the department. It is true that the assessing authorities as well as the appellate authorities are judges in their own cause ; yet when they are called upon to decide disputes arising under the Act they must act independently and impartially. They cannot be said to act independently if their judgment is controlled by the directions given by others. Then it is a misnomer to call their orders as their judgments ; they would essentially be the judgments of the authority that gave the directions and which authority had given those judgments without hearing the aggrieved party. The only provision under which the Board can issue directions is Rule 233 of the Rules framed under the Act. That rule says that the Board and the Collectors may issue written instructions providing for any supplemental matters arising out of these Rules. Under this rule the only instruction that the Board can issue is that relating to administrative matters ; otherwise that rule will have to be considered as ultra vires sec. 35 of the Act." 8. As stated above, under the provisions of the Act and the Rules the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is not authorised to issue any direction to the assessing authority in the matter of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the directions contained in annexure 1 are declared ultra vires and are quashed and the consequential notice issued to the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid direction is also quashed. 9. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. The assessing authority may proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 10. In the result, this writ application is allowed.