Skip to content


Veerendra Stores Vs. the State of Mysore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.R.P. No. 11 of 1972
Judge
Reported inILR1973KAR1089; (1973)2MysLJ444; [1973]32STC596(Kar)
ActsMysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 20(1), 26 and 29
AppellantVeerendra Stores
RespondentThe State of Mysore
Appellant AdvocateB.V. Katageri, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.G. Doddakale Gowda, High Court Government Pleader
Excerpt:
.....j] computation of time - assessment order passed by the assistant commissioner of commercial taxes -appeal under section 62 to the appellate authority - computation of period of limitation plea against dismissal of appeal as barred by limitation - held, the last date for presentation of the appeal being a holiday and the appeal presented on the very next day, should be taken to have been filed within the period of limitation in the wake of the provisions of section 10 of the mysore general clauses act, 1899. the question of filing an application seeking for condonation of delay does not arise. impugned order was quashed and matter remanded to the appellate authority to examine the appeal on merits treating the appeal filed as in time. karnataka value added tax act,..........his business premises was inspected on 27th september, 1969, by the assistant commissioner of commercial taxes (intelligence), bangalore. he discovered several irregularities which, in his opinion, amounted to an offence under section 26 of the act punishable under section 29. thereupon he issued a notice to the assessee dated 29th september, 1969, asking him to appear before him within seven days and show cause why penal action should not instituted for the offence committed and also giving the assessee an opportunity to compound the offence. this notice was served on one shekarappa on behalf of the assessee on the same day who made an endorsement admitting the offence and offering to compound the offence by payment of composition fee which may be fixed by the department. the.....
Judgment:

Govinda Bhat, C.J.

1. The petitioner is an assessee under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. His business premises was inspected on 27th September, 1969, by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), Bangalore. He discovered several irregularities which, in his opinion, amounted to an offence under Section 26 of the Act punishable under section 29. Thereupon he issued a notice to the assessee dated 29th September, 1969, asking him to appear before him within seven days and show cause why penal action should not instituted for the offence committed and also giving the assessee an opportunity to compound the offence. This notice was served on one Shekarappa on behalf of the assessee on the same day who made an endorsement admitting the offence and offering to compound the offence by payment of composition fee which may be fixed by the department. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the offer made by the assessee and proposed the compounding fee of Rs. 1,000. The assessee paid the composition fee of Rs. 1,000 as per his letter dated 29th September, 1969, and that was signed by one Shekarappa on behalf of the assessee. Thus the offence committed by the assessee was compounded and further proceedings were dropped as per the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), Bangalore, dated 29th September, 1969. Against the said order dated 29th September, 1969, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Gulbarga Division, Bellary, who, by his order dated 26th November, 1969, rejected the same on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable. Thereafter the assessee took up the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, who also rejected the same on the ground that it was not maintainable.

2. In this revision petition the assessee has challenged the decision of the Tribunal and the contention urged is that the order dated 29th September, 1969, is appealable falling under section 20(1) of the Act. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this case to determine whether an order fixing the compounding fee is appealable or not. What was done by the order dated 29th September, 1969, was to drop the proceedings in view of the fact that the assessee agreed to compound the offence and paid the compounding fee. By the dropping of the proceedings, the assessee cannot be said to be a person aggrieved. Therefore, the authorities below were right in the view they have taken that the order dated 29th September, 1969, was not appealable. Accordingly, this S.T.R.P. is dismissed, but without costs.

3. Petition dismissed.


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