Skip to content


The Chairman, Hirebidrai Unniya Audyogik Sahakari Utpadak Sangh Vs. the State of Mysore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.R.P. Nos. 54 to 59 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1974(1)KarLJ45; [1974]34STC376(Kar)
ActsMysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 21(2); Mysore Sales Tax Rules - Rule 38
AppellantThe Chairman, Hirebidrai Unniya Audyogik Sahakari Utpadak Sangh
RespondentThe State of Mysore
Appellant AdvocateB.V. Katageri, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, High Court Government Pleader
Excerpt:
.....holding that the order dated 13th august, 1969, was clearly illegal. we are clearly of the opinion that there was no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record and the tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the appeals......period of date of tax levied on wool purchase assessment assessment --------------------------------- order turnover tax rs. rs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1-7-61 to 30-6-62 18-3-65 86,135.50 861.36 1-7-62 to 30-6-63 27-3-65 76,905.48 1,889.68 1-7-63 to 30-6-64 29-3-65 1,38,610.75 4,158.32 1-7-64 to 30-6-65 31-3-67 1,05,188.31 3,155.64 1-7-65 to 30-6-66 31-3-67 1,40,503.01 4,215.09 1-7-66 to 30-6-67 24-4-68 1,17,253.38 3,517.05 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ the details of assessments for the different periods have been set out above. after the assessments were made, when a different commercial tax officer succeeded the officer who had made the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Govinda Bhat, C.J.

1. This is a batch of six revision petitions preferred by an assessee under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. The particulars of the assessment are as follows :

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Period of Date of Tax levied on wool purchase assessment assessment --------------------------------- order Turnover Tax Rs. Rs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1-7-61 to 30-6-62 18-3-65 86,135.50 861.36 1-7-62 to 30-6-63 27-3-65 76,905.48 1,889.68 1-7-63 to 30-6-64 29-3-65 1,38,610.75 4,158.32 1-7-64 to 30-6-65 31-3-67 1,05,188.31 3,155.64 1-7-65 to 30-6-66 31-3-67 1,40,503.01 4,215.09 1-7-66 to 30-6-67 24-4-68 1,17,253.38 3,517.05 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

The details of assessments for the different periods have been set out above. After the assessments were made, when a different Commercial Tax Officer succeeded the officer who had made the assessments, applications were made by the assessee for rectification under rule 38 of the Mysore Sales Tax Rules. The said applications were allowed by the then Commercial Tax Officer by his order dated 13th August, 1969, holding that the turnovers in question were exempt from taxation under the Act. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes of Belgaum Division I, Dharwar, by a common order dated 14th March, 1972, set aside the order dated 13th August, 1969. Against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, the assessee preferred six appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in S.T.A. Nos. 286 to 291 of 1972. The order of the Tribunal was delivered by Sri A. K. Channe Gowda, Chairman, who is a Judicial Member. In a well considered order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals holding that the order dated 13th August, 1969, was clearly illegal. It is against the said order of the Tribunal that the above revision petitions have been preferred by the assessee.

2. The question for decision is, whether there was any error or mistake apparent on the face of the record in order to confer jurisdiction on the Commercial Tax Officer to rectify the original orders of assessment. We are clearly of the opinion that there was no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record and the Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the appeals.

3. Before the Commercial Tax Officer who made the assessment orders, the assessee contended that the turnovers in question were not exigible to tax on the ground that the deliveries of wool by the members of the assessee which is a co-operative society and that there was no purchase by the society. The Commercial Tax Officer examined the records and the account books of the assessee and rejected that contention of the assessee. The Commercial Tax Officer held that in the instant case there were purchases of wool by the assessee. The remedy of the assessee, if it was aggrieved by the said orders, was to prefer appeals provided under the statute. The assessee did not prefer any appeals. Relying on a decision of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in some other matter passed in the case of a different assessee, the petitioner made applications for rectification which were allowed by a common order dated 13th August, 1969. The Commercial Tax Officer who made the order of rectification does not state in his order that he was able to find out any mistake on the face of the records that were already in the file. The basis of the order was that in some other case the Tribunal had taken a contrary view. That, in our opinion, does not justify an order of rectification in exercise of the powers under rule 38.

4. Sri B. V. Katageri, the learned counsel for the assessee, raised a fresh ground, namely, that the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is not the authority competent to set aside the order of rectification, but it is the Commissioner. Such a ground does not appear to have been urged before the Tribunal as could be seen on a perusal of the order or the grounds of appeal. The assessee cannot be permitted to raise a ground which was not urged before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.

5. Therefore, these revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they are dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150 one set.

The learned Senior High Court Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance in S.T.R.P. Nos. 55 to 59 of 1973 within one week from today.

6. Petitions dismissed.


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