K KONAPPA AND BROS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition presented by a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), praying for revising the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bellary, who in turn, had confirmed the order of assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Bellary.

(2.) The petitioner is a dealer in agricultural produce. He is a trader as well as a commission agent. For the assessment period commencing from 1st April, 1971, to 31st March, 1972, he filed his returns. As far as the purchases and sales effected by him as a trader, the assessment has been made and that is not the subject-matter of controversy. The assessee had acted as a commission agent in respect of known principals who were producers and the turnover of commission sales during the said period came to Rs. 2,64,901.36. The assessee claimed exemption from tax on the said turnover on the ground that he had acted as selling agent on behalf of the agriculturist-principals who are exempted from tax in view of the exception incorporated below section 2(1)(k) of the Act. On the ground that the assessee had not produced proof in respect of the exemption, a notice was served on 6th December, 1973, calling upon him to file objections, if any, before 14th December, 1973, for the proposal to reject the claim for exemption. The assessee failed to appear before the Commercial Tax Officer. He therefore proceeded to make the assessment as proposed in the notice. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. In the appeal, the assessee urged the following two grounds :

(3.) As regards the second ground urged for the petitioner, the appellate authority proceeded to state that it was not set out in the grounds of appeal and no application was made urging the said additional ground. As regards the first ground the appellate authority proceeded to state that notice was issued to the petitioner but he failed to appear before the assessing authority and the papers also did not disclose that he had requested for grant of time. He further held that there was no material evidence in support of the stand of the assessee that he had acted as agent of the agriculturist-principals.