AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Bhan, J.-This petition has been filed under Section 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ''Act'') against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (for short the ''Tribunal'') dated 8-2-1995 passed in Sales Tax Appeal No. 420 of 1994 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.
An ex parte assessment was made against the petitioner on 27-2-1993. Appellant filed an appeal before the JCCT (Appeals), Bangalore which came to be rejected for non-production of proof relating to payment of undisputed tax i.e., a sum of Rs. 10,962/-. After the rejection of the appeal, recovery proceedings for the recovery of the amount due from the petitioner which included the disputed tax as well as undisputed amount demanding a sum of Rs. 51,564-30 ps. was initiated. On receipt of this notice, petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
Tribunal refused to hear the appeal till the amount demanded from the petitioner was paid. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9718 of 1994 praying to issue writ of certiorari quashing the notice issued by the third respondent (Court of Special JMFC) asking the petitioner to deposit the tax. The said writ petition was disposed of on 5-4-1994 with the following two directions:
(i) The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 26,000/- within a period of four weeks from today;
(ii) Subject to the payment to be made as aforesaid, the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall stand stayed until the disposal of the second appeal and subject to the result of the said appeal.
Petitioner deposited the sum of Rs. 26,000/-. After the deposit, the appeal was heard by the Tribunal as per the directions issued in the writ appeal. The appeal stands dismissed by the Tribunal by observing as follows:
"Upon going through the records it is declared by both the sides that as on the date of order under appeal the appellant was found to be in arrears of Rs. 10,962/- being tax not disputed, in appeal. As per Section 20(3)(a) of the Act no appeal against an order of assessment shall be entertained by the Appellate Authority unless accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of tax not disputed in appeal.
The appellant having not produced proof of payment of tax not disputed in appeal, Rs. 10,962/- , the F.A.A. in our view rightly rejected the appeal. We have no reason to interfere with the order under appeal. Therefore we make the following".
We have heard the Counsel for the parties. Appeal cannot be entertained by the Appellate Authority unless accompanied by satisfactory proof of payment of tax and penalty not disputed in appeal. Appellate Authority in its discretion under Section 20(3)(b) can give such direction as it thinks fit in regard to payment of tax or other amounts payable, if the appellant furnishes sufficient security to its satisfaction in such form and in such manner as is prescribed. Admittedly no application to dispense with the deposit of undisputed tax was filed before the First Appellate Authority. Therefore the Tribunal has rightly observed that the First Appellate Authority was legally correct in rejecting the appeal as the petitioner had failed to produce satisfactory proof of payment of undisputed tax.
Counsel for the appellant argued before us that the High Court had permitted the petitioner to deposit Rs. 26,000/- , on deposit of which the Tribunal was directed to dispose of the second appeal on merits. According to him, earlier lapse on his part for non-deposit of undisputed tax stood condoned by the judgment of this Court. We do not agree with this contention. Recovery proceedings demanding a sum of Rs. 51,564-30 ps. were initiated against the petitioner and as he had failed to deposit the said amount this appeal was not being proceeded with by the Tribunal. High Court simply directed that on deposit of Rs. 26,000/- within a month, the second appeal filed before the Tribunal be disposed of. Tribunal on deposit of this amount of Rs. 26,000/- has disposed of the appeal on merits. There was no direction to dispose of the appeal in any particular manner and indeed there could be none except to dispose of the appeal on merits. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Act can be exercised by the High Court only on the ground that the Tribunal had either failed to decide or decided the matter erroneously. Either of these two situations do not arise in this petition i.e., neither the Tribunal has failed to exercise its jurisdiction nor decided the matter erroneously. Dismissed. No costs.