1983 (7) TMI 283 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Time-barred appeals don't block revision petitions under Karnataka Sales Tax Act, emphasizes High Court

State of Karnataka Versus Taj Commercial Corporation

State of Karnataka Versus Taj Commercial Corporation - [1984] 57 STC 91 (Kar) Issues:1. Interpretation of section 21(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act regarding the revisional power of the Deputy Commissioner.2. Whether a time-barred appeal under section 20 can preclude the revising authority from entertaining a revision petition.3. Challenge to the decision of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal regarding the revision petitions.Detailed Analysis:The judgment of the Karnataka High Court, delivered by Justice Jagannatha Shetty, pertains to two revision petitions filed by the State of Karnataka against an order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. Nos. 142 and 143 of 1977. The respondent, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, had their assessment orders for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 challenged before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Mangalore Division. The appeals were dismissed as time-barred, leading the assessee to file revision petitions under section 21(2) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Administration), which were also rejected. Subsequently, the matter was taken to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeals, stating that the dismissal of appeals as time-barred did not preclude the revising authority from entertaining revision petitions.The primary issue addressed in the judgment was the interpretation of section 21(2) of the Act, which empowers the Deputy Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any order passed by a subordinate Commercial Tax Officer if no appeal has been preferred under section 20. The Court emphasized that the revising authority's power is to ensure the legality, propriety, and regularity of the order or proceedings, provided no appeal has been filed under section 20. It was clarified that an appeal under section 20 must be in conformity with the Act and not in contravention thereof. Therefore, a time-barred appeal, like the one in this case, does not fall under section 20 and cannot bar the revising authority from entertaining a revision petition.The judgment drew support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Board of Revenue, Madras v. Raj Brothers Agencies [1973] 31 STC 434 (SC), reinforcing the principle that the revising authority's jurisdiction is not impacted by the dismissal of time-barred appeals. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petitions, upholding the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's decision and ruling against the State of Karnataka. The petitions were dismissed without an order as to costs, concluding the legal proceedings in this matter.