Judgment

SHAH, J. : In proceedings for determination of Wealth Tax for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59 the appellant Company claimed depreciation allowance on plant, building and machinery at the rates prescribed under the Income-tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Wealth Tax officer adopted the method prescribed by S. 7, sub-section (2) of the Wealth Tax Act and admitted the value of the assets as shown in the certified balance sheets on the respective valuation dates. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax confirmed the order passed by the Wealth Tax Officer. The Company then moved revision applications before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax under S. 25 of the Wealth Tax Act. Against the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax rejecting the applications, the Company has filed these appeals under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

2. Against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner appeals lay to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, but the Company preferred revision applications before the Commissioner.

We do not ordinarily encourage an aggrieved party to appeal directly to this Court against the order of a Tribunal exercising judicial functions under a taxing statute, and thereby to by-pass the normal procedure of appeal and reference to the High Court but in the present case, it appears to us that a question of principle of great importance arises. We have entertained these appeals because in our judgment the Commissioner of Wealth Tax has surrendered his authority and judgment to the Board of Revenue in deciding the questions which were sought to be raised by the Company in its revision applications.

3. Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act provides insofar as it is material:

"(1) The Commissioner may, either of his own motion or on application made by an assessee in this behalf call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in which an order has been passed by any authority subordinate to him, and may make such inquiry, or cause such inquiry to be made, and, subject to the provisions of this Act, pass such order thereon, not being order prejudicial to the assessee, as the Commissioner thinks fit :

x x x"

The power conferred by S. 25 is not administrative, it is quasi judicial. The expression "may make such inquiry and pass such order thereon" does not confer any absolute discretion on the Commissioner. In exercise of the power the Commissioner must bring to bear an unbiased mind, consider impartially the objections raised by the aggrieved party, and decide the dispute according to procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice; he cannot permit his judgment to be influenced by matters not disclosed to the assessee nor by dictation of another authority. Section 13 of the Wealth Tax Act provides that all officers and other persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow the orders, instructions and directions of the Board. These instructions may control the exercise of the power of the officers of the Department in matters administrative but not quasi judicial. The proviso to Section 13 is somewhat obscure in its import. It enacts that no orders, instructions or directions shall be given by the Board so as to interfere with the discretion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax in the exerise of his appellate functions. It does not, however, imply that the Board may give any directions or instructions to the Wealth Tax Officer or to the Commissioner in exercise of his quasi judicial function. Such an interpretation would be plainly contrary to the scheme of the Act and the nature of the power conferred upon the authorities invested with quasi judicial power.

4. The Commissioner appears, in our judgment, to have wholly misapprehended the true character of the jurisdiction with which he is by the Act entrusted and has surrendered his judgment to the directions of the Board of Revenue. The order sheet of the Commissioner (at pp. 10-36