Skip to content


The State of Mysore Vs. A.K. Khoja and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.T.R.P. No. 27, 28, 34, 35 and 36 of 1967
Judge
Reported in[1968]21STC354(Kar)
ActsSales Tax Act - Sections 20(1)
AppellantThe State of Mysore
RespondentA.K. Khoja and ors.
Advocates:Shantaraju, Adv. for E.S. Venkataramiah, High Court Special Government Pleader
Excerpt:
.....three times number of votes cast against resolution. meeting convened held to be contrary to act . registration of amended bye-laws is not proper. - 1. we dismiss these five revision petitions since we are not satisfied that they are fit cases for admission......dealer under the second proviso to section 20(1) of the sales tax act as it stood before its amendment, was the tax payable on the turnover admitted by him in the return produced by him. the fact that he did not appeal from one part of the assessment order made by the commercial tax officer does not mean that the tax determined by the commercial tax officer in respect of which there was no appeal was tax which the dealer admitted to be due. the tax becomes payable in that contingency in respect of that matter, not because there was an admission by the dealer but because there was a determination by the commercial tax officer. the contention urged before us overlooks the distinction between an admission and an adjudication. in our opinion, the sales tax appellate tribunal was right in.....
Judgment:

Somnath Iyer, J.

1. We dismiss these five revision petitions since we are not satisfied that they are fit cases for admission. The admitted tax payable by the dealer under the second proviso to section 20(1) of the Sales Tax Act as it stood before its amendment, was the tax payable on the turnover admitted by him in the return produced by him. The fact that he did not appeal from one part of the assessment order made by the Commercial Tax Officer does not mean that the tax determined by the Commercial Tax Officer in respect of which there was no appeal was tax which the dealer admitted to be due. The tax becomes payable in that contingency in respect of that matter, not because there was an admission by the dealer but because there was a determination by the Commercial Tax Officer. The contention urged before us overlooks the distinction between an admission and an adjudication. In our opinion, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in taking the view that no further tax was payable under the second proviso to section 20(1). We therefore dismiss these revision petitions.

2. Petitions dismissed.


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