MOHAMMED SAMIULLAH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice No. SMR.100/75-76 dated 12th March, 1976 (exhibit A), issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka, Bangalore ("Commissioner"), under section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ("the Act"), proposing to revise an order dated 5th January, 1976, of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore Division, Bangalore ("DC"), for the various reasons stated therein.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned notice principally on two grounds : (i) that section 22-A of the Act does not confer power of revision on the Commissioner to interfere with an appellate order made by the appellate authority under section 20 of the Act and (ii) that if the construction placed by him on section 22-A of the Act did not find favour with the court, then that provision was violative of article 14 of the Constitution. On these grounds a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Srinivasa Iyengar and Rama Jois, JJ., referred the following questions of law for the opinion of a Full Bench : "(i) Whether section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, confers power on the Commissioner to interfere with an order made by an appellate authority under section 20 of the Act ? (ii) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether section 22-A of the Act is void as offending article 14 of the Constitution ?" A Full Bench of this Court has furnished its opinion on 21st January, 1985 [Mohamed Samiullah v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [1986] 61 STC 107 (FB)], against the petitioner on both the questions. In this view, both the grounds urged by the petitioner are liable to be rejected. Sri B. P. Gandhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute this position. But, he still contends that the order made by the DC does not suffer from an error justify the Commissioner to revise the same under section 22-A of the Act. In support of his contention Sri Gandhi strongly relies on a ruling of the Orissa High Court in State of Orissa v. Samsuddin Akbar Khan and Company [1975] 35 STC 179.

(3.) Sri S. Rajendra Babu, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, contends that before the Commissioner examines and decides the objections filed by the petitioner, there is no justification for this Court to interfere with the impugned show cause notice.