TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 817
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 in terms of the order dated November 29, 2006 and followed it up with demand notice for payment of the amount determined under the order. Under the assessment order, it appears that the assessing authority had taken the view that the petitioner was liable to pay taxes under the provisions of the Act. It is also the version of the petitioner that the petitioner had preferred appeals against these orders before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) in terms of the provisions of section 20 of the Act, but those appeals having been dismissed in terms of common order dated January 19, 2007, the petitioner wanted to pursue further remedies by way of filing second appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by invoking the provisions of section 22(3) of the Act. It is because the petitioner is facing problems in getting his appeal admitted and also in seeking interim order of stay of recovery of the amount as determined by the assessing authority and affirmed by the first appellate authority and having found provisions of section 22(3) and 22(5) of the Act, particularly, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 26 of 2004 in force from August 1, 2004, has approached this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment orders the authority had also placed reliance on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Raheja Development Corporation v. State of Karnataka reported in [2005] 141 STC 298 are all narrated and it is contended that the demand is justified; that while the petitioner can avail of the appellate remedy under section 22 of the Act, it is bound to comply with the conditions as provided in the very section; that there is no merit in the challenge to the validity of this provision. It is also pointed out that an appellate remedy can be availed of only in terms of the statute provided for such appellate remedy and not otherwise; that the petitioner has no vested right of appeal in terms of section 22 of the Act even without complying with the conditions enumerated therein. I have heard Sri Chythanya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy, learned Government Pleader. It is very vehemently submitted by Sri Chythanya, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the provisions of section 22 of the Act are very obnoxious in so far as imposing the condition of deposit of 50 per cent of the amount in dispute in the appeal and also even the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TC 113 (Karn); [1991] ILR 582 (Karn) wherein the Division Bench of this court pointed out that the right of appeal is neither an inherent right nor a fundamental right but a right conferred under the statute and can be availed of only in the manner as provided in the statute and not independent of statutory provisions. Sri Shivayogiswamy, learned Government Pleader, would also place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nand Lal v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1980 SC 2097 and particularly paragraph 19 of this judgment which reads as under: "19. It is well-settled by several decisions of this court that the right of appeal is a creature of a statute and there is no reason why the Legislature while granting the right cannot impose conditions for the exercise of such right so long as the conditions are not so onerous as to amount to unreasonable restrictions rendering the right almost illusory (vide the latest decision in Anant Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat AIR 1975 SC 1234). Counsel for the appellants, however, urged that the conditions imposed should be regarded as unreasonably onerous especially when no discretion has been left with the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctober 3, 2007 directing the petitioner to deposit 50 per cent of the amount sought to be recovered from it under the proceedings before the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) and as the petitioner has not deposited the amount so far, the respondents should be permitted to proceed further in the matter. If the petitioner, who had been granted a conditional stay order, has not complied with the conditions, the stay order does not operate. The respondent may follow up the consequence, if they so think." that the petitioner is not even a bona fide litigant prosecuting for any genuine relief, but prosecuting this petition only to postpone or evade payment of tax as determined and therefore the writ petition should be dismissed without examining anything further on merits in this case, etc. While it is a fact that the petitioner has not complied with the interim order stipulating condition of deposit, I find that the petition is also not having any merit for the simple reason that there is no infirmity, particularly, to fall foul of article 14 or 19 of the Constitution of India in the statutory provision of section 22(3) and 22(5) of the Act. Sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 22 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matters which can be so exercised in terms of the statute and not independent of it and therefore there cannot be any lacunae or illegality in a provision of this nature. The very assertion that the petitioner has some vested right to prosecute the appeal in any manner he likes is more illusory than a reality. In so far as the argument that the provision is violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India as it treats such assessees against whom the order might have been passed bona fide and other assessees who might have suffered an arbitrary order, is concerned, it is not an argument which can be entertained as a right of appeal can be availed of by all assessees in the manner provided for by the statute and not otherwise. In fact, if statute makes an invidious discrimination from person to person as to the manner in which the appellate remedy can be availed of, that will be the case of discrimination and not the present statute as it stands as of now. The argument relating to violation of article 19 of the Constitution of India is also meritless for the reason that the liability is determined under the statute provided for raising revenue to the State. It is not as ....