Skip to content


The State of Mysore Vs. A. Batehumiah Saheb and Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.R.P. No. 54 of 1967
Judge
Reported in[1969]23STC515(Kar)
ActsMysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 20
AppellantThe State of Mysore
RespondentA. Batehumiah Saheb and Co.
Appellant AdvocateShantharaju for E.S. Venkataramaiah, High Court Special Government Pleader
Respondent AdvocateG.S. Ullal, Adv.
Excerpt:
- code of civil procedure, 1908. order 21, rule 46: [s.r. bannurmath & jawad rahim, jj] application under -attachment and prohibitory order for disbursement of the amount in rfd account of the judgment debtor maintained by the appellant bank order passed by the executing court held, order 21, rule 46a provides that the courts may in case of a debt, which has been attached under rule 46, upon the application of the attaching creditor, issue notice to the garnishee liable to pay such debt, calling upon him either to pay into court the debt due so as to satisfy the decree in question. the appellant is a garnishee of the judgment debtor is not in dispute. the executing court was justified in passing the impugned order. it is to be noted that mere prohibition under karnataka co-operative..........order. but, in the further appeal preferred by the petitioner to the sales tax appellate tribunal, the tribunal negatived the contention that the order was not an appealable order. so, the tribunal set aside the order of the deputy commissioner and remitted the appeal to him for disposal on merits. 2. in this revision petition presented by the state, the contention raised is that the order passed by the commercial tax officer is not an appealable order and that the view taken by the sales tax appellate tribunal that it was, is insupportable. 3. it is clear that there is no substance in this contention. section 20 of the mysore sales tax act, 1957, as it stood after its amendment in the year 1964, authorised an appeal from every order under the act by which the appellant is.....
Judgment:

Somnath Iyer, J.

1. On 29rd September, 1966, the Commercial Tax Officer First Circle, Bangalore, issued a notice to the petitioner demanding the payment of a sum of Rs. 3,960.98 as penalty in respect of the default stated to have been committed by him in the payment of the tax determined to be one. From the order made by the Commercial Tax Officer by which he imposed a penalty, the petitioner appealed to the Deputy Commissioner who dismissed it on the ground that the order made by the Commercial Tax Officer was not an appealable order. But, in the further appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal negatived the contention that the order was not an appealable order. So, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remitted the appeal to him for disposal on merits.

2. In this revision petition presented by the State, the contention raised is that the order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer is not an appealable order and that the view taken by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal that it was, is insupportable.

3. It is clear that there is no substance in this contention. Section 20 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, as it stood after its amendment in the year 1964, authorised an appeal from every order under the Act by which the appellant is affected. It is this amended section which was in force when the Commercial Tax Officer imposed a penalty, and so, the Deputy Commissioner was in error in thinking that that order was not appealable. An order by which a penalty is imposed on a dealer is an order which seriously affects him, and so, falls within the provisions of section 20 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act.

4. So, we dismiss this revision petition.

5. No costs.

6. Petition dismissed.


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