2011 (1) TMI 1294 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax under section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957

The judgment involves a challenge by the assessee against an order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax in his revisional jurisdiction under section 22A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The assessee, engaged in civil works contracts and construction of apartments, filed annual returns for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. Ex parte assessment orders were passed for both years due to the assessee's failure to produce books of account, leading to penalty imposition. Appeals were made to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who partially allowed them, prompting the assessee to appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. During the appeal's pendency, the Additional Commissioner, in a revisional capacity, reviewed the appellate authority's decision and set it aside, directing a reassessment. The appellant challenged this revisional order, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to the pending appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant contended that once a statutory second appeal is made to the Tribunal on the same subject matter, the Additional Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to revise the order under section 22A(1) of the Act. However, the court clarified that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised on matters not subject to appeal, even if an appeal is pending. In this case, the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal differed from the subject matter of the revision, which favored the assessee. Therefore, the court found no merit in the jurisdictional challenge.

Additionally, the appellant argued that the revisional direction conflicted with the assessee's rights. The court explained that if the appellant succeeds in the appeal, the appellate authority's direction prevails; otherwise, the assessing authority must consider the case lawfully. Even if remanded, the assessing authority must evaluate claims appropriately. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no substance in the arguments presented by the appellant.