Deferment of assessment under tax law upheld where statute allowed exclusion of time, objections were considered, and issue was sub judice.

Section 12(6)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was read as expressly empowering deferment of assessment where reasons are recorded in writing, with exclusion of the deferred period from limitation; a separate enabling provision was not required. The absence of a personal hearing did not vitiate the deferment orders where the objections filed by the assessee were considered on merits. Deferment was also upheld because the taxability of raw cashew was already sub judice, making pending judicial determination a relevant basis for postponing assessment. The writ petition was liable to fail because the deferment power existed, no procedural illegality was shown, and the orders rested on a relevant consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 12(6)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 empowered the authority to defer assessment without a separate enabling provision; (ii) whether absence of a personal hearing vitiated the deferment orders; (iii) whether the ground that the taxability issue was pending before the Court was a valid basis for deferment.

Issue (i): Whether section 12(6)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 empowered the authority to defer assessment without a separate enabling provision.

Analysis: The provision expressly contemplated exclusion of the period during which assessment had been deferred in any case or class of cases for reasons recorded in writing. The language of the sub-section showed legislative intent to confer the power of deferment on the authority and to extend the limitation period once such deferment was ordered. A separate independent provision was not necessary for the exercise of that power.

Conclusion: The challenge to the authority's power failed, and the contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether absence of a personal hearing vitiated the deferment orders.

Analysis: The objections filed by the petitioner had been considered by the authority. In such circumstances, the mere absence of a personal hearing did not amount to breach of natural justice, particularly where the matter was one of statutory discretion in a taxation context and the relevant objections were examined on merits.

Conclusion: The order was not invalid for want of personal hearing.

Issue (iii): Whether the ground that the taxability issue was pending before the Court was a valid basis for deferment.

Analysis: The issue of taxability of raw cashew was directly relevant to the assessment. Since that question was already sub judice before the Court, deferring the assessment proceedings until judicial resolution was a relevant and rational basis for the impugned orders.

Conclusion: The deferment was justified on the facts and did not suffer from irrelevance or extraneousness.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was liable to fail in entirety because the deferment power existed, no procedural illegality was shown, and the impugned orders were supported by a relevant basis.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute expressly provides for exclusion of time when assessment is deferred for recorded reasons, the deferment power is inherent in that provision, and consideration of filed objections satisfies natural justice unless the statute or facts require a personal hearing.

---