9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (10) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Central Sales Tax Act. He argues that section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act does not attract the application of section 32 of the Mysore Act. His submission is that the validity of the assessment made under the Central Sales Tax Act can be gone into by the court when recovery proceedings are initiated under section 13(3)(b) of the Act. It may be mentioned that this ground has not been raised in the revision petition. Section 9(3) of the Central Act clothes the authorities empowered to assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the general sales tax law of the appropriate State, to assess, collect and enforce payment of any tax payable by a dealer under the Central Act in the same manner as the tax on the sale or purchase of goods under the general sales tax law of the State is assessed, paid and collected; and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the general sales tax law of the State. This contention has not been raised in the revision petition, possibly, in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Adinarayana Setty v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kolar[1963] 14 S.T.C. 587. In that case, a petition under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the Supreme Court in The State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty Sons[1965] 16 S.T.C. 231. Their Lordships in the said case have held that the expression "levied" in section 9(1) of the Central Act referred to the expression "levied" in section 5(3)(a) of the State Act and, therefore, the Central Act had not made a departure in the manner of levy of tax. Their Lordships upheld the conclusion of the High Court that by virtue of section 8(2) of the Central Act, any exemption given by a State Act or the point determined by it at which a sale was to be taxed applied also to assessments under the Central Act. But the question for consideration in this revision petition is whether the petitioner can ask the Court, when proceedings are taken under section 13(3)(b) of the Act, to go into the question of the validity of the assessment to any tax made on him. In Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State of Bombay[1965] 16 S.T.C. 613., it was contended on behalf of the petitioner in the Supreme Court that the order of assessment made was without jurisdiction. The argument was that the State Legislature had no competence to levy tax in respect of outside sale and the impugned assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel for the petitioner has conceded before me that the petitioner has not taken up the assessment order in appeal or revision to any of the authorities as provided by the Act. In a decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in The State v. G.L. Udyawar[1963] 14 S.T.C. 628., Sadasivayya, J., speaking for the Bench, has observed as follows at page 632: "It would be manifest from these provisions that a party aggrieved by an order of assessment has full opportunity under the Act to challenge the validity and the extent of the tax assessed against him and the tax which he shall be finally liable to pay would be the tax as determined. It is then that section 13 of the Act is to be invoked for recovery of the tax. Sub-section (1) requires an assessee to pay the tax under the Act in such manner and in such instalments as may be specified in the notice of assessment. The consequences of default in making payments according to the notice of demand are provided for in sub-section (2). Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) provide for alternative modes of recovery. Thus a Magistrate entertaining an application for recovery of the amount of tax has nothing more to do than to take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by virtue of section 13(3)(b) of the Act and not under any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the very Act, by section 32, precludes the Magistrate from going into the question of validity of the assessment, as the Act has expressly provided various other remedies to the assessee by way of appeal, revision, etc. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the contention of the petitioner is correct that the Magistrate functions as a civil court and not as a criminal court and section 32 of the Act is not attracted, then, it may be mentioned, section 35 of the Act would act as a bar and prevent the court from going into the question of validity of the assessment. Section 35 states: "No suit or other proceeding shall except as expressly provided in this Act, be instituted in any court to set aside or modify any assessment made under this Act." It follows that no proceeding, except as expressly provided in the Act, be instituted in any court including a civil court to set aside or modify any assessment made under the Act. The petitioner is asking the court to set aside the assessment made under the Act without availing himself of the remedies expressly provided in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
