1991 (7) TMI 300 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Writ appeal dismissed, notice & assessment upheld under Karnataka Sales Tax Act

Sathu D´Souza Versus Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Bellary and Another

Sathu D´Souza Versus Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Bellary and Another - [1991] 83 STC 429 (Kar) Issues:Validity of notice issued under section 28-AA(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act read with rule 23F(2) and (3) for tax and penalty assessment.Analysis:1. The appellant challenged the notice issued proposing tax and penalty under section 28-AA(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The assessment was made based on the failure to deliver transit passes, leading to the proposed penalty. The appellant contended that the notice was without jurisdiction.2. The learned single Judge upheld the assessment, citing the Notification empowering the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Bellary, under section 28-A(3). The appellant was directed to appeal the assessment order within one month.3. On appeal, the appellant argued that the Notification did not empower the officer as required under section 28-AA(4), indicating a misinterpretation by the learned Judge. The appellant sought interference based on this ground.4. The Government Advocate presented Notification No. FD 105 CSL 90 dated 23rd May, 1990, arguing that the officer empowered to issue transit passes is authorized to assess under section 28-AA(4), validating the notice and assessment.5. The legal background of section 28-A and 28-AA was discussed, emphasizing the empowerment of officers to conduct inspections and assessments at check posts or barriers.6. The Notifications dated 27th July, 1990, and 30th August, 1990, empowered officers including the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Bellary, for assessment purposes.7. Section 28-AA(4) allows assessment if the driver fails to comply with regulations, independent of the general charging section. The specific empowerment of officers is crucial for such assessments.8. Rule 18A outlines the assessment process for non-compliance, providing for tax assessment, penalty imposition, and recovery procedures. Amendments to the rule clarified the authority for assessment under section 28-AA(4).9. The Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Bellary, was identified as the authorized officer for assessment under section 28-AA(4) in conjunction with rule 23F. The proposal notice was issued under the relevant sections, confirming the officer's jurisdiction for assessment.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ appeal, affirming the validity of the notice and assessment conducted by the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence), Bellary, under section 28-AA(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. The appellant was advised to pursue remedies as per the Act against the assessment order.