inherent in any authority. Where the statute confers the same power to
perform an act on different officers, as in this case, the two officers,
especially when they belong to different departments, cannot exercise their
powers in the same case. Where one officer has exercised his powers of
assessment, the power to order re-assessment must also be exercised by the
same officer or his successor and not by another officer of another
department though he is designated to be an officer of the same rank. In our
view, this would result into an anarchical and unruly operation of a statute
which is not contemplated by any canon of construction of statute. It is well
known that when a statute directs that the things be done in a certain way,
it must be done in that way alone. As in this case, when the statute directs
that “the proper officer” can determine duty not levied/not paid, it does not
mean any proper officer but that proper officer alone. It is impermissible to
allow an officer, who has not passed the original order of assessment, to
re-open the assessment on the grounds that the duty was not paid/not
levied by the original officer who had decided to clear the goods and who
was competent and authorised to make the assessment. The nature of the
power conferred by Section 28 (4) of the said Act to recover duties which
have escaped assessment is in the nature of an administrative review of an
act. The section must therefore be construed as conferring the power of such
review on the same officer or his successor or any other officer who has
been assigned the function of assessment. In other words, an officer who did
the assessment, could only undertake re-assessment which is involved in
