Skip to content


P.K.P. Abdul Hakeem and Co. Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 12324 of 1982
Judge
Reported in[1983]52STC205(Kar)
ActsCentral Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Sections 8(2A); Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 6B and 12B
AppellantP.K.P. Abdul Hakeem and Co.
RespondentThe State of Karnataka and anr.
Appellant AdvocateB.V. Katageri, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateM.R. Vanaja, High Court Government Pleader
Excerpt:
- section 26: [ram mohan reddy,j] custody of child rejection of application made under order 7, rule 11 (a) c.p.c., - order passed by family court - decree of divorce by mutual consent and childs custody in terms of the compromise - difficulties in implementation of visiting rights and custody of the child -separate application by the parties under section 26 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 for custody of the child - petitioners application for custody of the female child subject to visitation rights to the respondent-ex-husband was allowed and confirmed by the apex court with certain modifications in the year 2004.- application filed by the respondent under section 26 of the act for permanent and exclusive custody of the minor child, in the year 2006. petitioners objections - at..........as to why additional tax should not be levied under the provisions of the 'act' and also the central sales tax act, 1956. 2. when the matter came up for preliminary hearing the government advocate was directed to take notice and by consent of both the counsel, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. the notice impugned in the writ petition reads as follows : 'please take notice that the final assessment of 1979-80 was concluded on 12th december, 1980, in which the total and taxable turnovers were determined at rs. 21,73,909.94 and rs. 18,16,363.50 respectively under the c.s.t. act, 1956, and while levying taxes the question of additional tax and surcharge has been omitted. the local rate of tax, as per section 8(2a) of the c.s.t. act, 1956, has to be applied on the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Rama Jois, J.

1. The petitioner, who is a dealer, registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), has presented this writ petition questioning the legality of the notice issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Mysore, under section 12B of the 'Act' calling upon him to show cause, as to why additional tax should not be levied under the provisions of the 'Act' and also the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

2. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing the Government Advocate was directed to take notice and by consent of both the counsel, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. The notice impugned in the writ petition reads as follows :

'Please take notice that the final assessment of 1979-80 was concluded on 12th December, 1980, in which the total and taxable turnovers were determined at Rs. 21,73,909.94 and Rs. 18,16,363.50 respectively under the C.S.T. Act, 1956, and while levying taxes the question of additional tax and surcharge has been omitted. The local rate of tax, as per section 8(2A) of the C.S.T. Act, 1956, has to be applied on the inter-State sale covered by C forms on a turnover of Rs. 18,16,363.50. The extent of additional tax and surcharge works out to Rs. 7,265.40. This should be paid within three days from the date of receipt of this notice and objections if any should be filed on the same date.'

4. Section 6B of the 'Act provides for levy of additional tax on the turnover, as provided in the said section. There is no provision in the Central Sales Tax Act providing for the levy of additional tax. The notice, however, states that the additional tax payable under the Central Act comes to Rs. 7,265.40. The demand to this extent is plainly unsupportable in law.

5. In the result I make the following order :

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned notice dated 17th February, 1982 (annexure B), is set aside;

(iii) The respondent shall, however, be at liberty to issue fresh notice for the purpose of recovery of additional tax legally recoverable under section 6B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

6. Smt. Vanaja, the learned High Court Government Pleader, is permitted to file her memo of appearance within two weeks from today.


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