C MAHALINGAIAH AND SONS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three sales tax appeals are disposed of by the following common order as the questions of facts and law raised in them are identical and only the assessment years being different. They relate to the assessment years 1977-78, 1978-79 and 1979-80, the accounting period being the calendar year.

(2.) THE appellant-assessee is a commission agent as well as a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on the business of merchants and commission agents at Turuvekere in Tumkur district. The firm filed its returns for the relevant assessment years disclosing the turnover in copra and also in coconut. In respect of the turnover relating to copra, it claimed exemption as its turnover related to inter-State sales. The same was granted in regard to that turnover. It had collected tax for the year 1978 in a sum of Rs. 2,222. 29, for the year 1979 in a sum of Rs. 3,790. 72 and for the year 1980, Rs. 4,467. 03. The assessment was concluded accepting the return. Thereafter, the Commercial Tax Officer, Tiptur, by his notice dated October 13, 1981, as at annexure B, called upon the petitioner to show cause why for the year ending December 31, 1979 (only the show cause notice issued for that year has been produced as a specimen) in which he had collected Rs. 3,790. 72 as sales tax on inter-State sales should not be held to be in contravention of section 18 (1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and as such penalty levied at 1 1/2 times the amount so collected. In the course of the order dated November 9, 1981, relating to assessment year 1979, the Commercial Tax Officer has observed that despite the notice being served on the assessee, there was no response and as such he was compelled to proceed to levy penalty but restricting it to the amount collected which was forfeited to the Government. Similar orders were passed presumably for the year 1978 and for the year 1980.

(3.) NEITHER the appellant nor the department had produced material before him to examine whether the commission agent was a commission agent under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulation Act"), or was only a dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which within its definition includes an agent of any kind.