SATHU DSOUZA Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for our consideration in this case is whether the notice issued against the appellant under Section 28-AA(4) read with Rule 23F(2) & (3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, in No.CTO/INT/BLY/90-91 dated 9-1 -1991 proposing to levy tax of Rs. 29,700/- as well as notice even dated proposing to levy penalty of Rs. 59,000/- are valid in law? We may also add, for the sake of convenience, pursuant to this proposal notice the appellant filed his detailed explanation. On consideration of all that explanation, by order dated 15-4-1991 under Assessment No.1/90-91, the assessment has been made as under:

(2.) Before the learned single Judge on behalf of the Revenue Notifiation bearing No.FD 177 CSE 90(l) dated 27-7-1990 along with corrigendum dated 30-8-1990 were produced. From that the learned Judge drew the conclusion that the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence) Bellary had been empowered under Section 28-A(3) to exercise powers under the said Section; therefore, the proper remedy of the appellant would be to prefer an appeal against the order of the assessment and accordingly he dismissed the Writ Petition after granting time of one month to prefer an appeal.

(3.) In this Appeal before us the only point that is urged is the Notifications dated 27-7-1990 as modified on 30-8-1990 do not empower the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence) Bellary as required under Section 28-AA(4). Therefore, the learned Judge had mis-read the notifications. Consequently, the order calls for interference.