CHAMUNDI FINE ARTS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the assessment order dated 4.10.1982 concluded against the petitioner for the assessment year from 1.4.1979 to 31.3.1980. The assessment is under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) .

(2.) The 2nd respondent Additional Commercial Tax Officer, IVth Circle, Mysone, has determined the gross turnover at Rs. 4,33,899. The tax collected, export sales and interstate sales are given deduction to as could be seen from the last paragraph of I he assessment order. Thus, the net taxable turnover is shown at Rs. 33,971-00. That apparently constitutes purchase of handicrafts from un-registered dealers. That has been subjected to tax at 10 per cent, surcharge in addition to 4 per cent tax charged under Sec. 6 of the Act. Thus, the total sum of Rs. 1495 is demanded as tax. Shri B.V. Kategeri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, before me contended that the Additional Commercial Tax Officer did not have jurisdiction to subject the purchase turnover of the handicrafts from unregistered dealers, as the same were exported out of the State. But from reading the order as a whole, it does not appear that such a stand was taken by the assessee. As is seen in the concluding part of the order, export sales in the sum of Rs.37,745/- and interstate sales in the suin of Rs. 3,48,255/- have been given deduction to. In other words, what has beep subjected to tax in the impugned assessment order is what was not proved to be sales in the course of export out-side the State of Kamataka. That is a question of fact which has to be determined with reference to the records the assessee produced before the assessing authority and the order is an appealable order under Sec. 20 of the Act. Without pursuing those remedies merely on plea that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction, Shri B.V. Kategeri, contends that this Court should interfere and strike down that demand and the assessment order in so far as it relates to levy of tax under the Act. I do not find any substance in the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) There is no inherent lack of jurisdiction for the 2nd repondent Additional Commercial Tax Officer, to pass the impugned order in question. If he has erred either on fact or on law the same can be corrected by the appellatt authority. Thereafter, second appeal lies to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal from the order of the appellate authority. There, is a revision also provided for under Sec. 22 of the Act to this Court. Without eixhausiting the more efficacious remedies that are available to the petitioner under the Act, this is not a fit case in which this Court should interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.