AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.L. Dattu, J.-State''s revision petition against the order made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in STA No. 448 of 1996, dated 25-10-1999.
The following questions of law are raised in the revision petition for consideration and decision of this Court by the revenue. They are:
"(a) Whether the Tribunal is justified in condoning the delay of 361 days in filing the appeal without their being any satisfactory reasons explained by the assessee?
(b) Whether the Tribunal is justified in entertaining the appeal when there is a categorical finding given by the First Appellate Authority that the appeal was not accompanied by the satisfactory proof of payment of admitted tax as per the provisions of Section 20(3)(a) of the KST Act, 1957?
(c) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in giving a finding that the paddy being exempted commodity rice bran and husk are also exempted under Section 6 of the KST Act, 1957 when the rice bran and husk of pulses are classified under a separate Entry 8(iii) of Part ''C'' of Second Schedule to the KST Act, 1957?"
Insofar as first two questions of law raised in this petition, we are of the view that the finding of the Tribunal as to whether there was sufficient cause for non-filing of the appeal within the prescribed time and appeal filed before the First Appellate Authority was not accompanied with satisfactory proof of admitted tax as per the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, being a finding of fact by the Tribunal, the High Court will not interfere with it in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Act, 1957, unless it is shown that the Tribunal has taken extraneous or irrelevant consideration in arriving at that finding. Having gone through the order passed by the Tribunal on the first two issues, we are of the view that the Tribunal has assigned proper and cogent reasons while arriving at the conclusion that the assessee had sufficient cause in not approaching the Tribunal within the time prescribed under the Act. Even on the second issue, the Tribunal has assigned satisfactory reasons and the decision arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be characterised either as arbitrary or illegal, unfair and unjust. Therefore, no question of law arises for consideration of this Court under Section 23 of the Act.
Insofar as the third question of law is concerned, in our opinion, the said question would not arise for consideration of this Court for the simple reason, the Tribunal in its impugned order has only said that rice bran and de-oiled rice bran are one and the same commodity and therefore they are not taxable under Section 6 of the Act. Nowhere in the order the Tribunal has observed that since paddy being an exempted commodity, rice bran and de-oiled rice bran are exempted under Section 6 of the Act. In view of this, even the third question of law would not arise for consideration of this Court.
In the result, petition fails and accordingly, it is rejected. Ordered accordingly.