TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsidered in terms of the decision of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Administration]. 3. The petitioner is claiming to be a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 as amended in the year 2013. The petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing and trading different types of plywood, blackboard and Laminates. The petitioner company was registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ['KST Act' for short] and also under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ['CST Act' for short]. During the assessment year 2000-01, the original assessments were concluded creating some tax liabilities against which appeals were preferred. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as barred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondent No.3 rejecting the request of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel Sri.Atul K. Alur appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the KST Act to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority is 210 days. However, misinterpreting the same, the First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, as no power is vested with the Authority to condone the delay of 200 days in filing the appeal. On further appeal before the Tribunal, indeed it was obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to consider the same but unfortunately proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no satisfactory explanation was offered by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been filed by the petitioner under Section 25A of the KST Act. 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. At the outset, it is significant to observe that this Court is not adjudicating upon the orders of the Appellate Forums to address the grievances of the petitioner in as much as the power vested with the Appellate Authority to condone the delay of 200 days in filing the appeal. Moreover, assailing the order of the Tribunal whereby the order of the Appellate Authority is confirmed, Sales Tax Revision Petitions in STRP Nos.290 & 291/2018 are pending before this Court. In such circumstances, the plea of the petitioner to analyze t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on 10.09.2018 before the respondent authorities. It is very surprising that the petitioner has failed to submit the said statutory forms either before the First Appellate Authority or before the Tribunal. However, in view of the revision proceedings pending before this Court, no decision can be taken by the authorities at this stage. 11. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner was rendered in a different context and the same are not applicable to the facts of the case. In the case of M/s. Vijay Mining and Infra Corp. Pvt. Ltd., supra, the Cognate Bench of this Court was adjudicating upon the order of the Appellate Authority in rejecting the appeal on the ground that the Appellate Court has no power to condone ....