9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order dated 5th July, 1978, of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner in S.T.A. No. 659 of 1977. 2.. The petitioner-firm is carrying on the business as jewellers at Bijapur. For the assessment year 1974-75, the petitioner declared his taxable sales and purchase turnovers. The assessing authority accepting the declared turnovers levied the tax at 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty Commissioner, the petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The main contention urged in the appeal related to the lack of jurisdiction for the Deputy Commissioner to enhance the assessment by adopting the higher rate of tax while disposing of the appeal against the levy under section 6B. The Tribunal did not accept the contention and dismiss the appeal. Hence, thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirm, cancel or vary such order." It will be seen from the above provisions that the section confers power on the appellate authority to enhance the assessment or penalty. It may be by enhancing the turnover or the rate of tax. But the authority must give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before he does so. Secondly, the appeal should relate to that levy or the assessment. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sposed of on 8th April, 1982Karnataka High Court), a Bench of this Court after analysing the provisions of the Act observed: "...Though the tax under section 6B is an impost of a similar nature, it is levy distinct from the impost under section 5(1) or under section 6. This is the clear outcome of the scheme of section 6B and the effect of section 6B(2) of the 'Act'. Section 613(2) by providing f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
