M.C. Pathak, C.J.
1. These two petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the judgment and order dated 4th May, 1972, passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Case No. 50 STA/71 and Case No. 49 STA/71 respectively.
2. The petitioners in both these cases are the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Jorhat and the Superintendent of Taxes, Tinsukia.
3. Mr. B.P. Saraf, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has raised a preliminary point that the petitions in these two cases filed by the two petitioners, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes and the Superintendent of Taxes, are incompetent inasmuch as these two officers are by law bound to abide by the decision of the Assam Board of Revenue. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to a decision of this court in State of Assam v. Garodia Brothers  41 S.T.C. 402 (Civil Rules Nos. 812 and 813 of 1972 decided on 17th September, 1976), wherein this court has observed on this point as follows :
Thus it is found that the taxing authorities under the Act include the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioners of Taxes, Assistant Commissioners of Taxes (Appeals), Assistant Commissioners of Taxes, Superintendents of Taxes, Inspectors of Taxes, All Assam Investigation Officers and any other persons appointed as such by the State Government.
4. All the persons appointed as taxing authorities shall have such powers as may be conferred and perform such duties as may be required by or under this Act. That being the position, the Superintendent of Taxes and the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes in the instant cases are bound by the order of the Assam Board of Revenue and they are not entitled to challenge the order of the Board as has been done in the instant cases. All the powers under the Act are invested on the Commissioner of Taxes, who is empowered under Section 50 of the Act to delegate subject to the restrictions and conditions prescribed by the Rules made under the Act any of his powers to any person appointed under Section 8 to assist him.
5. That being so, if the Commissioner or any other taxing authority prescribed under the rule is not entitled to challenge the order of the Board, it is doubtful whether the State of Assam as such can come and challenge the order of the Board passed under the Act.
6. For the reasons given in the decision of this court in State of Assam v. Garodia Brothers  41 S.T.C. 402 (Civil Rules Nos. 812 and 813 of 1972), we hold that the petitioners in these two petitions are not competent to challenge the judgment and order of the Assam Board of Revenue and, that being so, these two petitions are not maintainable.
7. The petitions are accordingly rejected. The rules are discharged. There will be no order as to costs.
N. Ibotombi Singh, J.
8. I agree.