The main legal point established is that where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts as are essentially necessary to its execution, including the power to stay proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of the court.

This order shall govern the instant petition (No. 433 of 1954) and also the connected Miscellaneous Petitions (Nos. 434 and 435 of 1954)

2. The petitioners are assessees under the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. They were assessed to sales tax which was duly paid by them. The Commissioner of Sales tax, however, reopened the assessment under section 22B of the Act and remitted the case to the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Amravati, for making a fresh assessment. Against the order of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, the petitioners have appealed to the Board of Revenue which is the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (3) of section 22B. The petitioners made an application to the Board of Revenue to stay the proceedings before the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, but the application was rejected on the ground that there was no provision in the Act in regard to stay of proceedings. This order is impugned in these petitions.

3. The general principle laid down in Partington v. Attorney-General ((1869) L.R. 4 H.L. 100 at p. 122), that there is no room in a taxation statute for what is called the equitable construction only applies to the taxing part of the statute and not to the procedural part. Since an appeal is expressly provided in sub-section (3) of section 22B of the Sales Tax Act, it is implicit that the Board of Revenue can exercise all the powers which are necessary for the proper disposal of the appeal. The law on the subject is laid down in Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 10th edition, on page 361 in the following terms :-

"Where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts, as employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution. Cui jurisdictio explicari non potuit."

4. The order impugned reopens the assessment on certain grounds. The Board of Revenue is empowered to decide whether the principles of assessment set down by the Commissioner of Sales Tax are proper. If there was no scope for reopening the assessment, the resultant proceedings before the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax would be an abuse of the process of the Court. It seems axiomatic that where the Legislature invests an Appellate Tribunal with powers to prevent an injustice, it impliedly empowers it to stay the proceedings which may result in causing further mischief. In such cases the refusal to stay the proceedings may make the appeal itself nugatory, if a re-assessment is made in the meantime requiring the assessee to file another and costly appeal. A view of law which leads to such onerous results is prima facie untenable.

5. It is no doubt true that in the Code of Civil Procedure, there is a specific provision, namely, section 151, relating to the inherent powers of Courts. But that section does not create any new right and only enunciates the powers which are exercisable by Courts for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of any legal process : Hukum Chand Boid v. Kamalnand Singh (I.L.R. 33 Cal. 927) followed in Nand Kishore Singh v. Ram Golam Sahu (I.L.R. 40 Cal. 955). In Janki Das v. Sheo Prasad (I.L.R. 54 All. 344) and Asadali Chowdhury v. Mahamed Hossain Chowdhury (I.L.R. 43 Cal. 986), it was held that the Appellate Court can exercise powers of stay even if Order 41, rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, is not in terms applicable. The principle underlying these decisions is that Courts of law have got the power, apart from any express provision, to further the ends of justice and prevent harassment to the parties. What applies to the Courts of law also applies to quasi-judicial Tribunals. Therefore, since the Board of Revenue has the power to adjudge the correctness of the impugned order, it has also the power to stay the proceedings in pursuance of that order.

6. The petitions are accordingly allowed. The orders of the Board of Revenue dated 18th September, 1954, rejecting the applications for stay of proceedings before the Regi