1985 (1) TMI 301 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 based on lack of revision power and violation of article 14 of the Constitution. Interpretation of section 22-A's power to revise appellate orders. Justification for court's interference with the show cause notice. Direction for petitioner to appear before the Commissioner for further proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, proposing to revise an appellate order. The petitioner contended that section 22-A does not empower the Commissioner to interfere with appellate orders under section 20 and argued a potential violation of article 14 of the Constitution. A Full Bench of the Court provided its opinion against the petitioner on both grounds, leading to the rejection of the petitioner's arguments. The petitioner's counsel did not dispute this position but maintained that the appellate order did not warrant revision under section 22-A, citing a precedent from the Orissa High Court.

The Government Advocate representing the respondent argued that the Court should not interfere with the show cause notice before the Commissioner examines and decides on the objections raised by the petitioner. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner could argue before the Commissioner that the appellate order does not justify revision under section 22-A, indicating that the matter should be determined by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Court found no basis for interference at that stage, especially considering that any adverse decision by the Commissioner could be appealed before the Court.

The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Commissioner to present their case and receive further instructions on the matter. The Court dismissed the writ petition, discharged the rule issued, and directed the parties to bear their own costs. The order was to be communicated to the respondent within ten days. The Court clarified that the dismissal of the petition should not be construed as expressing an opinion on the merits, except for matters conclusively addressed in the order.