NAVEEN ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Sales Tax Revision Petitions u/s. 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (for short 'the Act') have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2010 in S.T.A. Nos. 1309-1310/2002 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal'). By this judgment the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94. Those appeals were directed against the orders dated 03.06.2002 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals), Davanagere Division, Davanagere (for short 'Appellate Authority') dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant. The said appeals were filed against the orders, both dated 29.03.2001, passed u/s. 12(1) of the Act read with Rule 18(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules'). The Assessment Officer vide order dated 29.03.2001 had concluded the assessment by confirming the proposals made in the proposition notice dated 8.03.2001. The operative portion of the orders of the Assessment Officer read thus:

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his contention invited our attention to Annexure-B which is a certificate of registration under Rule 9(5) of the Rules. This certificate under the Rules, in our opinion, is of no avail to the petitioner to contend that the petitioner-firm was not in existence in 1992-93 and 1993-94. The petitioner has not produced any material on record to show that the petitioner firm was not in existence in 1992-93 and 1993-94. In other words, the petitioner firm did not produce its registration certificate as firm. Learned counsel for the petitioner even across the Bar could not produce any material to show that when the petitioner firm was actually registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act. He also made a feeble attempt stating that it was a proprietary concern and not partnership firm. These submissions also do not find any support from the record. For the first time such contention was raised by the petitioner. Even on the question of limitation, learned counsel for the petitioner could not and did not point out any material in support of his contention based on the provisions contained in sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act. In our opinion, no question of law is involved in these cases nor could learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raise any question of law worth considering in the instant revision petitions filed u/s. 23(1) of the Act. Hence we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.