Skip to content


irappa Channabasappa Wani Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, First Circle, Hubli - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 2066 of 1967
Judge
Reported in[1970]25STC331(Kar)
ActsBombay Sales Tax Act, 1946
Appellantirappa Channabasappa Wani
RespondentCommercial Tax Officer, First Circle, Hubli
Appellant AdvocateK. Srinivasan, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateK.S. Puttaswamy, Advs.
Excerpt:
- limitation act (36 of 1963)section 5: [n.k.patil,j] order rejecting application for re-grant of inam property appeal against was filed after inordinate delay of 23 years explained by petitioners saying that they came to know about impugned order only after 23 years however, no statement made as to their source of information held, explanation offered by petitioners does not inspire confidence of court. petitioners duty bound to explain delay satisfactorily by assigning cogent reason and showing bona fide. delay not condoned. .....tax officer, first circle, hubli, to the petitioner who is the son of the dealer, a sum of rs. 1,699.40 was sought to be recovered as penalty since payment was not made in time. 2. it was urged by sri k. srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the son of a dealer is not a dealer and that there is no provision under the bombay sales tax act, 1946, to levy penalty on the legal representative of a dealer. the learned government pleader was unable to show us any provision under the bombay sales tax act, 1946, which empowers the levy of penalty on a legal representative of a dealer. in our opinion, the demand for payment of penalty made on the legal representative of the dealer is not authorised by law. therefore, we quash the demand notice dated 21st april, 1966, levying a.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Govinda Bhat, J.

1. One Channabasappa Basappa Wani was a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946. He was assessed to sales tax for the period 1st April, 1948 to 31st March, 1950. The said dealer Channabasappa Basappa Wani died on 23rd November, 1964. By a notice dated 21st April, 1966, issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, First Circle, Hubli, to the petitioner who is the son of the dealer, a sum of Rs. 1,699.40 was sought to be recovered as penalty since payment was not made in time.

2. It was urged by Sri K. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the son of a dealer is not a dealer and that there is no provision under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, to levy penalty on the legal representative of a dealer. The learned Government Pleader was unable to show us any provision under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946, which empowers the levy of penalty on a legal representative of a dealer. In our opinion, the demand for payment of penalty made on the legal representative of the dealer is not authorised by law. Therefore, we quash the demand notice dated 21st April, 1966, levying a penalty of Rs. 1,699.40 on the petitioner.

3. No costs.

4. Petition allowed.


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