TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) IN this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners call in question the validity of assessment orders dated 20th October, 1989, passed by the Respondent/commercial Tax Officer, Madikeri and the penalties imposed thereby for assessment years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1981-82.

( 2 ) THE petitioner owns a Cardamom Estate also known as"kanakandy Estate" at Bhagamandala, of Madikeri Taluk. For the assessment years mentioned earlier, he filed his returns under the kamataka Sales Tax Act, declaring his income at nil as the petitioner claimed to have transacted no business during the said years. Proposition Notices were all the same issued to him in respect of all the four years on the 8th of May 1989, proposing to levy tax on the turn-overs mentioned in the same. The petitioner filed a common statement of objections to all the Notices inter alia contending that the proposed Assessments were barred by limitation, in the light of the provisions of Section 12 (5) of the Kamataka Sales Tax Act. The assessing-Authority did not agree and over-ruled the objection in the assessment orders made by him all dated 20th of October, 1989. While doing so he referred to an order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 12 (6) (b) of the Act, deferring til! further orders assessments in the case of the petitioner. This order remained in force till the same was revoked by the Commissioner on 12th of october 1988. The Assessing Authority, also appears to have taken note of Karnataka Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1989 (Karnataka act No. 8/89), whereunder after sub-section (5), the following provisions was deemed always to have been inserted namely:- provided that assessment proceedings relating to any year ending before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Sales tax (Amendment) Act, 1985 shall be completed within a period of four years from such commencement; provided further that nothing in this sub-section limiting the time within which assessment may be made shall apply to an assessement made in consequence of or to give effect to any findings, directions or orders made under Section 20, 21 22, or 22a or any. judgment or order made by any Court. "the Assessing Authority was of the view that since the period prescribed for completion of the assessment expired on 31. 7. 1989 that is four years from the date Act No. 27/85 had come into force and since the Commissioner of Sales Tax had deferred the completion of assessment till 12th of October, 1988, any assessment completed on 20th of October, 1989 was within time. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petitions assailing the order passed by the Assessing Officer, as already indicated earlier.

( 3 ) MR. Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a two fold submission in support of the Writ Petitions. Firstly he argued that act No. 8/89, by which the proviso extracted earlier had been retrospectively incorporated in the parent Act did not apply or cover cases in which assessments had become time barred as per the legal position prevailing before the incorporation of the said provision. In all such cases argued the learned Counsel the proviso even though added retrospectively would not have the effect of extending the period of limitation for completing the assessment proceedings. In support he placed reliance upon two single Bench decisions of this Court, in 1) M/s. KARNATAKA CONSUMER FEDERATION vs state OF KARNATAKA and ANOTHER, 2) Sri K. KUMHAMBU vs 1. W. P. No. 11517/89 DD: 9. 11. 1993 the ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, mangalore, wherein this Court has taken the view that in the absence of any specific provision in the Act, providing for cases that have already become time barred as per the earlier provisions, the amended provision would not have the effect of extending limitation.

( 4 ) ALTERNATIVELY Mr. Bhat submitted that even if the period of limitation is deemed to be four years from the first of August 1985, as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document