Court Opinion

ID: 9652313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:22:09.296431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:49.317562
License: Public Domain

CERCONE, Judge,
dissenting:
Appellant was convicted of failing to remit sales taxes to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue pursuant to Section 7268 of the Pennsylvania Tax Reform Code of 1971.1 He was sentenced to a one-year probationary period and, thereafter, appealed to this court alleging that the prosecution below was barred by the Statute of Limitations.
I would not reach the merits of this appeal, however, as in my opinion, jurisdiction of this subject matter does not lie in this court, but is vested in the Commonwealth Court pursu*460ant to both the Tax Reform Code of 1971 and the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970.2
Appellant cites Section 211.302 of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act as authority for jurisdiction of this appeal in the Superior Court. That section states:
“The Superior Court shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction of all appeals from final orders of the courts of common pleas, regardless of the nature of the controversy or the amount involved, except such classes of appeals as are by any section of this act within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or the Commonwealth Court.” (Emphasis added)
The exception contained in the above section is met by Section 211.402 which states: “The Commonwealth Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from final orders of the courts of common pleas in . (2) all criminal actions or proceedings for the violation of any rule, regulation or order of any administrative agency of the Commonwealth.” [Emphasis added.] Clearly, this criminal action originates from the violation of a rule, regulation, or order of an administrative agency in that appellant’s failure to remit 1973 business sales taxes to the Department of Revenue in accordance with the provisions of the above cited statute3 gave rise to the complaint filed against him by Charles E. Flannery, District Supervisor, Bureau of Sales and Use Tax, Pennsylvania Department of Revenue. It is also significant to me that Section 7268 (Crimes) of the Tax Reform Act of 1971 is identical to Section 3403-573 (Crimes) of the Tax Act of 1963 for Education,4 from which it was derived. In reviewing this section, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recognized its essentially administrative origin stating explicitly, “The crimes created under § 573 are *461administrative in nature . . . .” Commonwealth v. Shafer, 414 Pa. 613, 622, 202 A.2d 308, 313 (1964). The Tax Reform Act of 1971 contains specific provisions that persons aggrieved by decisions of the Board of Finance or Department of Revenue have the right to appeal those decisions to the Commonwealth Court.5 Furthermore, Section 211.403(1) of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act states:
“The Commonwealth Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of appeals from final orders of administrative agencies in any of the following cases.”
(1) All appeals from administrative agencies of the Commonwealth under the Administrative Agency Law or otherwise and including appeals from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review and from any department, departmental administrative board or commission, independent board or commission or other agency or administrative officer of this Commonwealth having statewide jurisdiction. . . ”
See, Charles Riebe Construction Co. v. Commonwealth of Pa., 17 Pa.Cmwlth. 508, 333 A.2d 226 (1975); Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Commonwealth Board of Finance and Revenue, 14 Pa.Cmwlth. 59, 321 A.2d 413 (1974); and Lilian et a 1. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 90, 311 A.2d 368 (1973).
The amendments to the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act6 demonstrate the intent of the legislature to centralize all state administrative agency appeals in the Commonwealth Court unless a contrary intent is clearly demonstrated. Hartman v. Commonwealth Department of Transportation, 6 Pa.Cmwlth. 409, 295 A.2d 850 (1972). In my view, the intent of the legislature as expressed in the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act would best be served by transferring this appeal to the Commonwealth Court.7

. Act of March 4, 1971, P.L. 6, No. 2 art. I, § 101 et seq., 72 P.S. § 7268(b) (Supp.1976).

. Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, art. I, § 101, et seq., 17 P.S. § 211.101 et seq. (Supp.1976).

. See, n. 1, supra.

. Act of March 6, 1956 (P.L. 1228), 72 P.S. 3403-1; repealed concurrently with the effective date of the Tax Reform Act of 1971 (72 P.S. 7280).

. The Tax Reform Act of 1971, 72 P.S. §§ 7235, 7255 (Supp.1976).

. 17 P.S. 211.508 and 17 P.S. 211.509.

. See, Section 211.503(b) of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act.