KESHAWA TRADING CO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the suo motu revisional power conferred by Section 22-A (1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1957) ('the Act') has been exercised or initiated within a period of four years from the date of the order or not as required by Section 22-A (2) of the Act and therefore barred by time or not is the short interesting question that arises for determination in these cases. In order to appreciate the same, it is necessary in the first instance to notice the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 16098 of 1981 in some detail as illustrative only and the other cases in general.

(2.) WRIT PETITION NO. 16098 OF 1981: For the assessment years 1970-71 the purchase turnovers of paddy effected by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 12,69,286-25 and Rs. 29,93,521-26 was brought to tax under the Act by the Commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi ('CTO') in his assessment ciders made on 29-9-1973 and 30-4-1974. Against the said orders of the CTO, the petitioner filed appeals under Section 20 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bellary ('DC') inter-alia contending that the paddy converted into rice had not undergone manufacturing process and his purchase turn overs were not exigible to tax under Section 6 of the Act. On 14-3-1975 the DC following a Division Bench ruling of this Court in The State v S. Raghurama Setty and others (35 STC 360) which had been challenged by the State in an appeal before the Supreme Court and pending,'allowed the same. On 24-3-1981 the Supreme Court allowed the said appeal filed by the State and has reversed the decision of this Court, since reported as State of Karnataka v B.Raghurama Setty (47 STC 369). "On 18-3-1977, the DC forwarded the records of his office in the appeal filed by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, Bangalore, ('Commissioner') 'forneedful action', which was received by him on 23-3-1977. On receipt of the records in the above appeal and the connected cases, the office prepared a note thereon as hereunder and submitted the same to the Commissioner : FILE NO. RVN 118/77-78 Sub : Revision of cases itf which conversion of paddy into rice whether amounts to manufacture. "The DCCT, Bellary has sent the following cases and has suggested to revise the orders. The point in these caseg are conversion of paddy iato rice whether amounts to manufacture or not. The order date and the date within which section 22-A can be exercised are indicated below : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_172_KANTLJ2_1985Html1.htm</FRM> 3). The above cases may lie over till the Supreme Court's decision in B. R.Shetty's case is received as we cannot initiate action under Section 22-A for the present". M/s Saraswathi Trading Company, Koppal, SI. No. 1 in the -'rote' is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16098 of 1981. On an examination of the said note and the records, the Commissioner on 8-7-1977 approved the proposal made at para 3 of the note. On the Supreme Court reversing the decision of this Court, the Commissioner las issued show cause notice No. SMR 10 & 11/ 1981-82 dated 27-5-1981 to the petitioner under Section 22-A of the Act proposing to revise the order of the DC and restore the order of the CTO, the validity of which is challenged by it in Writ Petition No. 13992 of 1981 before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) All the petitioners have challenged the respective show cause notices received by them on the ground that the proceedings to revise the appellate orders had not been exercised or initiated by the Commissioner within a period of four years from the date of the order and, therefore, they are wholly without jurisdiction and illegal.