Skip to content


Chairman, Kurigala Sangopaneya Mattu Unneya Udyogika Sahakari Sangha Vs. State of Karnataka - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T. Revision Petition Nos. 50 to 53 of 1975
Judge
Reported in(1977)6CTR(Kar)65; 1977(1)KarLJ137; [1977]39STC299(Kar)
ActsKarnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 21, 21(2), 21(3), 22-A and 38; Karnataka Sale Tax Rules, 1957 - Rule 38
AppellantChairman, Kurigala Sangopaneya Mattu Unneya Udyogika Sahakari Sangha
RespondentState of Karnataka
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a. no. 59/1988]section 163-a; [chidananda ullal & a.n. venugopala gowda, jj] compensation inadequacy of appealed against- applicability of section 163a held, the claimants whose annual income is not more that rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under section 163-a of the act. the claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the ii schedule of the act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. the award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. the note appended to column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining..........and following the said decision rectified the orders of assessment and refunded the tax. the deputy commissioner of commercial taxes, however, found that the order of rectification was improper and illegal and he accordingly, in exercise of his revisional power conferred under s. 21, issued notice calling upon the assessee to show cause why he should not revise those rectification on orders. in response to the said notice, the only objection raised by the assessee related to the jurisdiction of the deputy commissioner to initiate proceedings under section 21(2) of the act. it was contended that he could not exercise his revisional power in respect of the order in question. the deputy commissioner while rejecting that objection, set aside all the rectification orders and restored.....
Judgment:

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.

1. The common petitioner in the sen revision petitions under Section 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (called shortly 'the Act') is a society. For the years 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, the Commercial Tax Officer levied tax on the purchase of wool made by the society. But later the assessee filed application under Rule 38 of the Rules framed under the Act for rectification of assessment orders and for refund of the tax levied and collected. The assessee contended in its application that since the purchase of wood was made entirely from its members, the turnover relating to the said purchase was not taxable under the Act in view of the decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in M/s. Supervisor Wool Industry Development Co-operative Association Limited, Ranebennur. The Commercial Tax Officer, acceded to that request and following the said decision rectified the orders of assessment and refunded the tax. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, however, found that the order of rectification was improper and illegal and he accordingly, in exercise of his revisional power conferred under S. 21, issued notice calling upon the assessee to show cause why he should not revise those rectification on orders. In response to the said notice, the only objection raised by the assessee related to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to initiate proceedings under section 21(2) of the Act. It was contended that he could not exercise his revisional power in respect of the order in question. The Deputy Commissioner while rejecting that objection, set aside all the rectification orders and restored the original assessment orders. He was of the opinion that there was no mistake calling for rectification of the assessment orders by the Commercial Tax Officer since the assessee itself filed returns declaring the turnover relating to purchase of wool liable to tax. The assessee took up the matter in appeals before the Karnataka Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore with the same contention regarding the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to revise the rectification order made under Rule 38. It was urged that an order made under Rule 38 could be revised only by the Commissioner under Section 22-A and not by the Deputy Commissioner under S. 21(2). But the Tribunal did not agree with that contention and accordingly it rejected the appeals.

2. Hence these revision petitions raising the same question of law.

3. In order to determine the question we may set out below for immediate reference the relevant portions of S. 21 and, S. 22-A.

'21. Revisional powers of Assistant Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners

(1) xx xx xx xx xx (2) The Deputy Commissioner may of his own motion call for and examination the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded under the provisions of this Act by a Commercial Tax Officer subordinate to him and against which to appeal has been preferred under S. 20, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such proceeding and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit.

(3) In relation to an order of assessment passed under this Act, the power under sub-S. (1) and (2) shall be exercisable only within a period of four years from the date on which a period of four years from the date on which the order was passed.

(4) No order shall be passed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) enhancing any assessment, unless an opportunity has been given to the assessee to show cause against the proposed enhancement.'

22.A. Revision by the Commissioner of orders prejudicial to revenue ......

(1) the Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if the considers that any officer subordinate to him is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to make such inquiry as he deems necessary pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling assessment and directing a fresh assessment.

(2) The power under sub-section (1) shall be exercisable only within a period of four years from the date of the order sought to be revised was passed.

Explanation :- In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-S. (2) any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.'

4. To make the picture complete, we may also set out hereunder R. 38 as it then stood.

38. Rectification of mistake. -

(1) An assessing, appellate or revising authority or the appellate Tribunal may, at any time within five years from the date of any order passed by it, rectify any mistake apparent from the record;

Provided that nos such rectification which has the effect of enhancing the assessment shall be made unless the assessing, appellate or revising authority or the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the dealer of its intention to do so and has allowed him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(2) where such rectification has the effect of reducing the assessment, the assessing authority shall make any refund which may be due to the dealer.

(3) Where any such rectification has the effect if enhancing the assessment, the assessing authority shall serve on the daler a revised notice in form 6 and thereupon the provisions of the Act and these rules, shall apply as if such notice has been served in the first instance.'

5. The scheme provided by the above provisions is like this; The Deputy Commr. under S. 21(2) may suo motu call for and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding recorded under the Act by a Commercial Officer subordinate to him and against which no appeal has been preferred, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order or as to the regularity of the proceeding and pass such order as he deems fit S. 21(3) provides a period of limitation for revising such order. It states that he could revise such order within a period of four years from the date on which the order was passed S. 21(4) provides procedure to be followed in case the Deputy Commissioner wants to enhance the tax liability.

6. But the revisional power of the Commissioner under s. 22-A is very much limited. He may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act and if the considers that any order passed therein is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the justify, including an order enhancing modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. The time limit provided to exercise that revisional power is four years from the date of the order sought to be revised.

7. Relying upon these provisions, Mr. Kasageri, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that if the interests of the revenue, the Commissioner alone could revise that order under S. 22-A and no concurrent revisional power is with the Deputy Commissioner to revise such order.

8. There is hardly any substance in the contention. The Deputy Commissioner, in our opinion, is not precluded from revising an order which is also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. S. 21(2); if one peruses, does not lend itself to the construction suggested by learned counsel.

9. It was next urged that the Deputy Commissioner under S. 21(2), could revise only an order of assessment which was not appealed and not every order made under the Act. Support to this contention was drawn from the provisions of S. 21(3) which provides a period of four years for revising an order of assessment. The contention, in other words, was, that having regard to S. 21(3), the meaning of 'any order' passed or 'proceeding' recorded in S. 21(2) must be limited to an order of assessment only, and not any other order made under the Act.

10. In our opinion, it is necessary to examine in these petitions, whether 'any order' contemplated under S. 21(2) is wide enough to cover every order made under the Act, or should it be limited only to an order of assessment. It is also unnecessary to decide whether an order of assessment includes an order of rectification . S. 21(3) covers all orders made 'in relation to an order of assessment'. It is therefore sufficient if we hold that the order revised by the Deputy Commissioner related to the order of assessment, since it is not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner has revisional power in respect of such order.

11. The order revised by the Deputy Commissioner was a rectification order made under rule 38 as it then stood. By that order, the original of assessment has undergone a change and the tax liability of the assessee has been reduced and consequently refund was ordered. It was therefore evidently an order in relation to the order of assessment and falls squarely within the revisional power under S. 21(2).

12. In the result, these petitions fail and are dismissed. But, in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //