R F PURANIKAMATH Vs. COMMR OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a theatre owner in the name of 'Ravi Chitra Mandii' at Laxmeshwar in Dharwar District. He was assessed by the Commercial Tax officer who is also the Entertainment Tax officer under the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for various periods, under S. 6-B of the Act which provides for bringing to tax escaped assessment. 47 orders relating to 47 periods of assessment in the relevant period came to be passed. The petitioner filed a single appeal under the Karnataka Entertainments Tax Rules 1959. That appeal came to be dismissed as not maintainable by the appellate authority namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in the area having jurisdiction over the area on the ground that separate appeals were required to to filed in respect of each of the orders passed by the Enterlainn ent tax officer under S. 6-B of the Act. The petitioner preferred a single revision petition against the order of the appellate authority, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial taxes, under R. 49 of the Rules. The Commissioner after hearing the counsel for the petitioner dismissed the revision petition agreeing with the findings of the Appellate authority. The Commissioner of Commercial taxes, held that separate appeals were required to be filed and therefore the Deputy Commissioner was not in error in rejecting the single appeal filed against the 47 orders.

(2.) Aggrieved by the Commissioner's order the sole respondent in these proceedings, petitioner has prayed that the impugned order of the Commissioner rejecting the revision petition be 'set aside.

(3.) The only ground urged by Mr. B. V. Katageri, learned Counsel for the petitioner before me has been that in all the 47 orders the only matter in controversy was whether on the facts of the case of the petitioner in respect of the 47 orders S. 6-B of the Act was attracted and in the circumstance all the 47 assessment orders passed under S. 6-B should be treated as one and one appeal and one revision was adequate. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narahari v. Shankar(1). In that case from the decree of the trial court in favour of the plaintiff two separate appeals were taken by two sets of defendants. The appellate court allowed both the appeals and dismissed plaintiff's suit by one judgment and ordered that the copies of the judgment to be placed on the file of the other connected appeal. . Two decrees were prepared. The plaintiff preferred two appeals. One of the appeals was time barred and on the principles of res judiscat a the High Court dismissed both the appeals. In that circumstance it was held that it was not necessary to file two separate appeals in that case. The question of res judicata arose only when there were two suits. As there was only one suit and both the decrees were in the same case and were based on the same judgment and the matter decided, the principle of res judicata was not attracted. It was also felt that the High Court of Hyderabad from which the appeal arose should have given the benefit of S. 5 of the Limitation Act to the plaintiff-appellant. In that judgment there is an observation made that when the matter in controversy is one and the same, a single appeal is maintainable. It is on that observation Mr. Katageri heavily relies upon. I think that observation is made with reference to the facts of the case which was before the Supreme Court. The law laid down in that case is definitely in conformity with S. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code which deals with the rule or principle of res judicata.