1978 (3) TMI 190 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds Tribunal order to remand cases, directs refund of institution fee to petitioner-assessee.

K Banappa M. Basappa Versus State of Karnataka

The court dismissed the revision petitions, upholding the Tribunal's order to remand the cases for fresh disposal after affording a reasonable opportunity ... - Issues Involved:1. Commencement of rectification proceedings under Section 25-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.2. Validity of rectification orders without service of notice.3. Remand of cases by the Tribunal.4. Refund of institution fee by the Appellate Tribunal.Detailed Analysis:1. Commencement of Rectification Proceedings under Section 25-A:The primary issue was whether rectification proceedings under Section 25-A to correct mistakes in any order made before the commencement of the Karnataka Sales Tax (Second Amendment) Act, 1970, can be considered to have commenced without serving notice of the proposed rectification on the assessee. The court emphasized that the language of the provisos in Section 25-A, as well as Sections 22 and 23, does not suggest that rectification proceedings cannot commence without notice being served. It was concluded that the proceedings commence with any overt act, including the issue of notice within the prescribed period, and not necessarily with the service of the notice.2. Validity of Rectification Orders without Service of Notice:The Tribunal had set aside the rectification orders on the grounds that they were made without serving notice to the assessee, which was adversely affected. The court held that the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the orders but clarified that the proceedings for rectification had indeed commenced within the time allowed by law, as notice was issued within the limitation period prescribed under Section 8 of the Amendment Act.3. Remand of Cases by the Tribunal:The petitioner contended that the Tribunal should not have remanded the cases for reconsideration after setting aside the rectification orders. The court disagreed, stating that the Tribunal was justified in remanding the cases for disposal according to law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The court noted that the Tribunal's decision to remand was in line with ensuring the principles of natural justice.4. Refund of Institution Fee by the Appellate Tribunal:The petitioner argued that the Tribunal should have refunded the institution fee paid in the appeals. The court found that the Tribunal did not provide reasons for denying the refund and directed the Appellate Tribunal to refund the institution fee paid by the petitioner-assessee in the appeals before it, as authorized under Rule 30(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules.Conclusion:The court dismissed the revision petitions, upholding the Tribunal's order to remand the cases for fresh disposal after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The court also directed the Appellate Tribunal to refund the institution fee paid by the petitioner-assessee. There was no order as to costs, and the court made it clear that no opinion was expressed on the Tribunal's interpretation of Section 25-A of the principal Act.