LAWS(KAR)-1967-8-10

VENUGOPALASWAMY AND CO Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

Decided On August 16, 1967
SRI VENUGOPALASWAMY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MYSORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In respect of the assessment year 1961-62 the Commercial Tax Officer commenced proceedings before a Magistrate under section 13(3) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, for the recovery of the tax still due and a penalty of Rs. 11,565.95. The petitioner unsuccessfully prosecuted a revision petition in respect of the penalty before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and so, presented an appeal to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, in which, the Tribunal at one stage made an order on 29th December, 1964, directing a fresh disposal of the matter by the Commercial Tax Officer in accordance with law. Although the ground on which the order of remand thus made by the Tribunal rested is not very clear, we are able to gather that the Tribunal was of the opinion that the commencement of the proceeding for the recovery of penalty should have been preceded by a hearing afforded to the petitioner. On behalf of the State, a review was sought of this order made by the Tribunal, and, that review ended in an order made by the Tribunal on 29th December, 1964, by which, the earlier order made by it was reversed and the petitioner's appeal was dismissed. This is the effect of the order made by the Tribunal, although the Tribunal does not say so in so many words. Although the Tribunal stated no more than that it allowed the review petition, it is plain that it revoked its earlier order and affirmed that of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.

(2.) The only ground on which the Tribunal so reversed its own previous order was that when that order was made, decision of this Court was not brought to its notice. That decision according to the Tribunal made an elucidation that the petitioner was not entitled to the opportunity which was directed by the earlier order.

(3.) In this revision petition Mr. Katageri placed before us a restricted submission that the Tribunal did not have the competence or power to review its own decision on any such ground, and, we think that, to this submission there can be no answer.