THIMMEGOWDA B D Vs. AGRL ITO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSESSMENT proceedings for asst. yrs. 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 were completed by the Agrl. ITO, Chickmagalur by four different orders passed by him. Suo motu revisional proceedings against the said orders were then initiated by the Dy. Commr. of Commercial Taxes (A), Mysore culminating in orders that came under challenge in four different appeals filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. The challenge inter alia was founded on the plea that the Dy. Commr. had no power or authority to revise the assessment orders, in the light of the provisions of the Karnataka Agrl. IT (Amendment) Act, 1983, which conferred such powers only in respect of assessments made upto the year ending 31st of March, 1982. The Tribunal found favour with this argument and by a common order dt. 7th June, 1985 set aside the orders passed by the Dy. Commr., holding the same to be without jurisdiction. While the position stood thus Karnataka Agrl. IT (Amendment) Act, 1985, (Karnataka Act 23 of 1985) amended s. 35 in the Principal Act and inter alia introduced with retrospective effect an explanation which reads as follows :

(2.) CONSEQUENT upon the above addition, the respondent by his communication dt. 14th of October, 1985, informed the petitioner about the effect of the Explanation and called upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of tax payable for the assessment years in question as determined by the Dy. Commr. in the orders, passed by him in suo moto revisional proceedings. The communication pointed out that on account of the addition of the Explanation, the decision delivered by the Tribunal as to the validity of the orders passed by the Dy. Commr. had been rendered ineffective and unenforceable. A similar communication was sent by the respondent to the Coffee Board asking the latter to hold back the amounts payable to the petitioner for purposes of utilisation of the outstanding tax dues. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petitions questioning the communications and the demand raised by the respondent.

(3.) MR. Sarangan, however, argued that apart from the question of jurisdiction, the petitioner had raised certain other points, in the appeals filed by him against the S.M.R. orders of the Dy. Commr. These points he urged had not been touched by the Tribunal as it had considered it unnecessary to do so keeping in view the fact that the appeals were succeeding on the question of jurisdiction alone. He submitted that in case the order passed by the Tribunal was to be deemed to have been rendered ineffective on the question of jurisdiction, the petitioner would be deprived of an opportunity to canvass other grounds of challenge against the orders of the Dy. Commr. unless such an opportunity is reserved to him by this Court. There is merit in this submission. The Tribunal had, while disposing of the appeals, specifically declined to go into the other questions raised by the petitioner, in the appeals filed by him. This was even otherwise understandable for any such exercise would have been unnecessary keeping in view the fact that the appeals were being allowed on the question of jurisdiction alone. Now that the question of jurisdiction stands settled, on account of the legislative intervention and amendment of the Principal Act, the petitioner would be entitled to canvas other points raised by him against the orders under challenge. This can be done by the petitioner by filing a suitable application before the Tribunal for a rehearing on the appeals and fresh orders on points other than those touching upon the jurisdiction of the Dy. Commr.