DR.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J. - (1.) THESE appeals were filed against the order dated 15.11.1999 in S.T.A. Nos. 31 and 32 of 1996 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka vide which, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.
(2.) THE appellant is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') engaged in the activity of hulling paddy and is also a trader in rice, paddy husk and rice bran. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bellary passed an order of assessment under Section 12(3) of the Act vide order dated 12.7.1990 for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Devangere Zone, Devangere issued notices dated 16.2.1994 and 21.3.1994 under Section 22-A of the Act proposing to revise the order of assessment dated 12.7.1990 passed by the Assessing Authority on the ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the notices, the Revisional Authority had made observations to the effect that the books of accounts have not been properly maintained. In response to the notices, the appellant filed reply on 4.4.1994 denying the observations made by the Revisional Authority and had requested the said Authority to drop the proceedings initiated under Section 22-A of the Act. The Revisional Authority on 8.4.1994 issued a further notice under Section 22-A(1) of the Act making the same proposal as made in the earlier notices and further proposed to levy of penalty under Section 18-A of the Act. The Revisional Authority confirmed the proposals made in the notices issued under Section 22-A of the Act vide order dated 2.6.1994 and modified the set-off granted by the Assessing Authority.
(3.) THE appellant feeling aggrieved by the revisional orders preferred two appeals in the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court dismissed the appeals by its order dated 15.11.1999. The High Court took the view that the determination of tax contemplated under Section 12(3) of the Act took within its ambit the levy of penalty under Section 18-A of the Act and if the Assessing Authority while passing such an order had not considered the levy of such penalty, the order under Section 12(3) was amenable as such to the jurisdiction under Section 22-A of the Act.;