2006 (3) TMI 693 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner under section 22-A.

Detailed Analysis:

The appellant, a dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, opted for composition under section 17(6) for the assessment year 1999-2000. Subsequently, the appellant requested to be assessed under the regular provisions of section 5-B. The assessing authority approved this request, assessed the appellant, and directed a refund of excess tax paid. The Joint Commissioner also approved the refund. However, the Additional Commissioner issued a notice proposing to set aside the refund approval and the assessment order under section 5-B. The appellant challenged this action, contending that the Additional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under section 22-A.

The Additional Commissioner's revisional power under section 22-A is limited to orders under section 20 or 21. The impugned orders did not fall under these sections, as they were made under section 5-B and involved refund approval by the Joint Commissioner. The Additional Government Advocate did not dispute this position. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Additional Commissioner were without jurisdiction, rendering the subsequent order void ab initio.

The objection raised by the appellant regarding jurisdiction was not related to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, as specified in section 24-A of the Act. The objection was about the inherent lack of jurisdiction, which cannot be cured even by consent. The court found no merit in the argument that the objection should have been raised earlier and held that the objection raised in this appeal was valid.

Considering the above analysis, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner, and decided that there would be no order as to costs.