2010 (2) TMI 1106 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Condonation of delay - the developments were not to the knowledge of the appellant as the appellant who was holding the post of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had relinquished the post on the day the learned single judge passed the impugned order and developments thereafter being not to the knowledge of the appellant Held that - the developments were not to the knowledge of the appellant as the appellant who was holding the post of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had relinquished the post on the day the learned single judge passed the impugned order and developments thereafter being not to the knowledge of the appellant. It cannot be again said that the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Department though is an officer subordinate to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Department while passing an order as an Appellate Commissioner exercise quasi-judicial functions and as such the responsibility for ensuring implementation of that order on the administrative side lies only on the Commissioner and the non-implementation of the order of the Joint Commissioner results in some hardship or grievance to an assessee or a dealer, it is the Commissioner who has to own up the responsibility apart from the concerned Joint Commissioner by explaining himself for such inaction, as is warranted in law and depending upon the service conditions of the officer. Be that as it may, we find absolutely nothing wrong in the order passed by the learned single judge and more so in imposing cost on the Department and in turn making it recoverable from the salary of the first respondent. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.
2. Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3. Production of additional documents.
4. Order of stay of the impugned order.
5. Legitimacy of levying cost on the appellant.
6. Responsibility for ensuring compliance with refund orders.
7. Registry's procedural lapses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act:
The appellant, a non-party to the original order, sought to appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The court determined that the appeal was not tenable as it was against the portion of the order levying costs, which is not permissible under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Condonation of Delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The appellant filed for condonation of a 137-day delay in filing the appeal, citing lack of knowledge of developments post relinquishment of his position. The court allowed the application for condonation of delay, acknowledging the appellant's explanation.

3. Production of Additional Documents:
The appellant sought to produce additional documents to support his case. However, the court dismissed this application, finding no merit in the appeal itself.

4. Order of Stay of the Impugned Order:
The appellant requested a stay on the order appealed against. This application was also dismissed by the court, as the primary appeal was found to be without merit.

5. Legitimacy of Levying Cost on the Appellant:
The appellant contested the cost imposed by the single judge, arguing that he had taken necessary and timely actions. The court upheld the original order, stating that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, as the administrative head, is responsible for ensuring compliance with refund orders. The court found no fault in making the cost recoverable from the appellant's salary.

6. Responsibility for Ensuring Compliance with Refund Orders:
The court emphasized that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is responsible for the enforcement of refund orders. The appellant's argument that the responsibility lay with the Joint Commissioner was rejected. The court highlighted that the Commissioner must ensure compliance with departmental instructions and orders.

7. Registry's Procedural Lapses:
The court noted significant procedural lapses in the registry, including failure to mention the previous appeal against the same order and improper maintenance of the order sheet. The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to rectify these issues, ensure proper pagination, and maintain a diary for follow-up actions.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed on merits, with the court finding it meritless and frivolous. The applications for permission to appeal and condonation of delay were allowed, but those for additional documents and stay were dismissed. The court reiterated the Commissioner's responsibility for compliance with refund orders and directed the Registrar to address procedural deficiencies in the registry.