(1.) HEARD ON MERITS.
(2.) THE PETITIONER IS PROCEEDED AGAINST IN A PROCEEDING UNDER SECTON 13 (3) (B) OF THE KARNATAKA SALES TAX ACT, 1957, FOR RECOVERY arrears OF SALES TAX. INITIALLY, NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EVER THOUGH THE SAID NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED, THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE, relyihg UPON A DECISION OF THIS COURT IN S. DASAPPA AND COMPANY vs COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, MYSORE HAS FOUND THAT NO notice IS NECESSARY. HE HAS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED ISSUING OF FINE LEVY warrant, AGGRIEVED BY WHICH, THE PETITIONER HAS APPROACHED THIS COURT.
(3.) THIS VERY DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE WAS REFERRED TO IN A SUBSEQUENT DECISION BY A LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF this COURT IN M/s. SAPNA AGENCIES VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER of COMMERCIAL TAXES, DISPOSED OF ON 20. 9. 1993. THE LEARNED single JUDGE, THEREIN, POINTED OUT AS TO HOW THE LAW LAID DOWN IN dasappa's CASE STOOD OVER-RULED IN VIEW OF THE CONTRARY VIEW TAKEN in THE DIVISION BENCH DECISION OF THIS COURT IN K. LAKSHMINARAYANA HOLLA VS THE COMMERCIAL AX OFFICER and ANOTHER. IN THE SAID DIVISION BENCH DECISION, VIZ. , K. LAKSHMINARAYANA HOLLA VS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER and ANOTHER, HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. S. VENKATARAMAIAH, AS HE then WAS, SPEAKING FOR THE BENCH, HELD THAT, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY to AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER ASSESSEE TO MAKE HIS submission, BEFORE ANY FURTHER ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE LEARNED magistrate IN THE PROCEEDING CONCERNED UNDER SECTION 13 (3) (B) OF the KARNATAKA SALES TAX ACT, 1957. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION OF THE division BENCH, IT HAS TO BE CONCLUDED THAT THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE erred IN DISPENSING WITH THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSES, AND IN STRAIGHT away ISSUING FINE LEVY WARRANT. PETITION IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE. THE matter IS REMITTED TO THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE TO PROCEED AFRESH, AFTER issuing NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE WHO IS THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND WHO is THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE, AND TO AFFORD HTM an OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE HIS SUBMISSION.