MAK WOOD INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which falls for determination in this sales tax revision petition under section 23 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, is whether the first appellate authority was correct in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation, the appeal being presented 206 days beyond the prescribed time without considering the explanation offered in regard to the delay that had occurred in presenting the appeal ?

(2.) SUB -section (2) of section 20 of the Act prescribes period of 30 days to prefer an appeal against the order of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer or the Commercial Tax Officer as the case may be. The time in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 20 of the Act will commence running against the assessee from the date on which the notice of assessment was served on the appellant or from the date on which he is served with a copy of the order against which he has to prefer an appeal. Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 20 empowers the appellate authority to admit the appeal if sufficient cause is shown for not preferring the appeal within the period prescribed. In other words, a discretionary power is conferred on the appellate authority to be exercised in accordance with judicial norms as proceedings are quasi judicial in character.

(3.) IT is useful for us to observe that in furtherance of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Act no rules have been prescribed in regard to the procedure to be followed by the appellate authorities concerned in entertaining the appeals beyond the prescribed period. This lacuna should be made good by the State Government by framing appropriate rules prescribing that every appeal presented beyond the period prescribed must be accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay on sufficient cause being shown enabling the appellate authority concerned to enternee the appeal as is done in almost every other judicial proceeding based on the principles underlying section 5 of the Limitation Act. This is to avoid unnecessary hardship to the assessee as well as the department. Such an application supported by affidavit if so prescribed should accompany the memorandum of appeal itself.