IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6516 of 2009 M/S Britannia Industries having its local office Didarganj Patna City, Patna, Through its authorized Signatory Rameshwar Prasad Bijpuria, S/o Late of Gauri Shanker Bijpuria, resident of 402 Shashi Kuter, exhibition Road Patna. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeal), Central Division, Patna. 4. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Patliputra Circle, Patna. …….Respondents. ----------- 02. 11.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The short point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that penalty under Section 54 of the Value Aided Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been imposed for the years 2005-2006 when Rule 62 did not provide as to who shall be the prescribed authority for the purpose of Section 54 of the Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the Bihar Value Aided Tax Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were subsequently amended vide S.O. No. 55 dated 21st July 2007 and hence the prescribed authority for the purpose of Section 54 could exercise powers of prescribed authority only for subsequent years and not in respect of penalty imposable for earlier years. 2 A perusal of relevant provision under Section 54 of the Act show that if a dealer contravenes some of the provisions of Section 54, the prescribed authority shall, after giving the dealer reasonable opportunity of being heard, impose on him, in addition to any tax payable a sum by way of penalty equivalent to 2 per cent of the tax payable by him under Section 36 for every month, or part thereof, of such default. The aforesaid provision is almost in mandatory terms and the liability of paying the prescribed penalty in the circumstances mentioned in Section 54, arises under the provisions of the Act itself. Section 2(x) defines prescribed authority to mean the authority prescribed by the Rules made under the Act to exercise powers conferred under different provisions and perform such functions as may be conferred by or under this Act. The Rules are framed under the provisions of the Act to carry out the purposes of the Act. Once the liability under the provisions of the Act has already arisen on account of facts ascertainable, the prescribed authority has to carry out the mandate of law. So long as Rule 62 had not been amended, no officer or authorities under Section 10 of the Act could claim to 3 be the prescribed authority but once the required amendment was introduced in Rule 62, from 21st July, 2007 onwards, the prescribed authority was bound to carry out the mandate of taxing statute and the liability arising under the provisions of the Act can not be written off by the prescribed authority only because the rules were framed later. In the present case the orders have been passed after 21st July, 2007 by the prescribed authority and hence such orders do not violate any provision of the Act or the Rules and can not be treated against law on the touchstone of jurisdiction. After the amendment in rule 62 came into force on 21st July, 2007 the prescribed authority was duty bound under law and under the provisions of the Act to give effect to rights and liabilities arising under valid provisions of the Act. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this writ petition, It is accordingly dismissed. Vikash/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)