Back
1985 Supreme(Kar) 204
Karnataka High Court
Keshawa Trading Co. - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - Respondent
Decided On : 06-11-85
W.P. : 13992 of 1981
K.R.Prasad, K.SRINIVASAN INDRAJEETH SHAH, S.RAJENDRA BABU
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of suo motu revisional power must be initiated within the prescribed time as required by the Act.
Headnote:
Suo Motu Revisional Power - Exercise of Power within Prescribed Time - The court determined whether the suo motu revisional power under Section 22-A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was exercised within the prescribed four-year period as required by Section 22-A(2) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's purchase turnovers of paddy were brought to tax by the Commercial Tax Officer. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes allowed the petitioner's appeal based on a Division Bench ruling, which was later reversed by the Supreme Court. The Deputy Commissioner forwarded the records to the Commissioner for necessary action.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed whether the suo motu revisional power was exercised within the prescribed time and found that the records were forwarded to the Commissioner for necessary action, but it was not clear whether the suo motu revisional power was initiated within the four-year period as required by the Act.
Issues: The key issue was whether the exercise of suo motu revisional power was within the prescribed time as required by the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere forwarding of records to the Commissioner for necessary action did not establish the initiation of suo motu revisional power within the prescribed time, and thus, the exercise of power was barred by time.
Final Decision: The court held that the exercise of suo motu revisional power was barred by time and therefore not valid.
( 2 ) WRIT PETITION NO. 16098 of 1981: For the assessment years 1970-71 the purchase turnovers of paddy effected by the petitioner amounting to rs. 12,69,286-25 and Rs. 29,93,521-26 was brought to tax under the Act by the commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi ('cto') in his assessment ciders made on 29-9-1973 and 30-4-1974. Against the said orders of the CTO, the petitioner filed appeals under Section 20 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner of commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bellary ('dc') inter-alia contending that the paddy converted into rice had not undergone manufacturing process and his purchase turn overs were not exigible to tax under Section 6 of the Act. On 14-3-1975 the DC following a Division Bench ruling of this Court in The State v s. Raghurama Setty and others (35 STC 360) which had been challenged by the state in an appeal before the Supreme court and pending,'allowed the same. On 24-3-1981 the Supreme Court allowed the said appeal filed by the State and has reversed the decision of this Court, since reported as State of Karnataka v B. Raghurama Setty (47 STC 369 ). "on 18-3-1977, the DC forwarded the records of his office in the appeal filed by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, bangalore, ('commissioner') 'forneedful action', which was received by him on 23-3-1977. On receipt of the records in the above appeal and the connected cases, the office prepared a note thereon as hereunder and submitted the same to the Commissioner : file NO. RVN 118/77-78 sub : Revision of cases itf which conversion of paddy into rice whether amounts to manufacture. "the DCCT, Bellary has sent the following cases and has suggested to revise the orders. The point in these caseg are conversion of paddy iato rice whether amounts to manufacture or not. The order date and the date within which section 22-A can be exercised are indicated below :
