M S SHIRAHATTI Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER HAVERI
LAWS(KAR)-1966-11-13
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on November 14,1966

M.S.SHIRAHATTI Appellant
VERSUS
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, HAVERI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. MINIMAX LTD [LAWS(BOM)-1974-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER WARD E AJMER VS. HAR NARAIN MOHAN LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1984-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1978-3-6] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Narayana Pai, J. - (1.)The petitioner is an assessee to sales tax in respect of the year 1959-60. His claim under section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 for a lower rate of tax in respect of certain inter-State transactions was rejected by the original assessing authority, the Commercial Tax Officer, Haveri, on the ground that the relevant declarations or certificates referred to as 'C' Forms in the orders of the authorities, were not produced by the petitioner right up to the time the order of assessment came to be passed. The petitioner appealed to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Belgaum, complaining that the original authority had not given him sufficient opportunity to produce the necessary declarations, and actually produced some declarations before the appellate authority. The appellate authority received those declarations and gave the petitioner the benefit of reduced rate to the limit of the transactions covered by the said declarations. Thereafter the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Mysore, acting in exercise of his suo motu power of revision under section 21 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, gave notice to the petitioner why the appellate order should not be set aside and after hearing him made an order setting aside the appellate order and restoring that of the original assessing authority. In this writ petition directed against the said order, the petitioner contends that the order in revision passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is without jurisdiction and should, therefore, be quashed.
(2.)The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has interfered with the appellate order of the Deputy Commissioner on the view that the appellate order was vitiated by illegality, impropriety or irregularity. According to him, the language of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act is explicit and mandatory and there was no scope whatever for an assessee to claim the benefit of section 8(1) by producing the 'C' Forms before the appellate authority after the assessment order has been made against him. He also observed that the Act does not confer any power on the appellate authority to receive 'C' Forms produced before it for the first time by the assessee by condoning the failure on the part of the assessee to do so before the assessing authority.
(3.)In support of the order of the revising authority, a further argument has also been addressed before us on behalf of the department to the effect that the order of the appellate authority (Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) on the face of it appears to be a wrong one passed without the authority applying its mind to the claim or contention of the assessee that the original authority had not given him sufficient opportunity to produce 'C' Forms, not has it recorded therein that the appellate authority was satisfied that the assessee had not been guilty of any latches or is otherwise entitled to any concession or latitute by way of condonation of delay.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.