1987 (11) TMI 364 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner to revise assessments made prior to the amendment.
2. Substantive rights versus procedural matters in the context of tax law amendments.
3. Applicability of precedents relating to vested rights and procedural changes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner to Revise Assessments Made Prior to the Amendment:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, challenged the notice issued by the Joint Commissioner proposing to set aside the assessment order for the year 1981-82. The petitioner argued that the Joint Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere with orders made prior to the amendment of section 22-A of the Act, which came into effect on 1st April 1983. The petitioner's counsel contended that the authority to revise the assessment for the year 1981-82 rested solely with the Commissioner, as the return was filed in 1982, before the amendment.

2. Substantive Rights Versus Procedural Matters in the Context of Tax Law Amendments:
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that the right of appeal is a substantive right and not merely a matter of procedure. This right, once vested, could not be taken away except by express enactment or necessary implication. The petitioner also cited Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry, where the Supreme Court reiterated that the right of appeal is a substantive right governed by the law in force at the time of the institution of the suit.

3. Applicability of Precedents Relating to Vested Rights and Procedural Changes:
The Government Pleader countered by citing decisions from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Karnataka High Court, which held that the authority to exercise revisional jurisdiction is procedural. In Nevatia Private Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that the Deputy Commissioner could exercise revisional jurisdiction under the new Act, even if the assessment proceedings commenced under the old Act. Similarly, in Sha Vajeshankar Vasudeva and Company v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, it was held that procedural changes regarding the authority to assess do not affect vested rights.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner's argument did not hold, as the power of revision under section 22-A of the Act is not a vested right of the assessee but a procedural matter. The scheme of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and other fiscal statutes indicate that the designation of authorities to assess and revise assessments, and the limitations for exercising such power, are procedural and constitute machinery provisions for the administration of the Act. The court found no substance in the petitioner's contentions and dismissed the writ petition accordingly.