GOKAK MILLS LTD Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In respect of the assessment made by the Commercial Tax Officer, when the Deputy Commissioner exercised revisional jurisdiction suo motu under section 21 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, he reached the conclusion that the turnover in respect of cotton yarn between the period 1st April, 1958, and 30th September, 1958, could not be subjected to tax in view of the declaration of the law, by this Court, in Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons v. State of Mysore ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 583.) v. State of Mysore ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 597.) Karnatak Coffee Company v. Commercial Tax Officer, Davanagere ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 658.) and Mysore Silk House v. State of Mysore ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 597.) and the ruling of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Yaddalam Lakshminarasimhiah Setty and Sons ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 231.).

(2.) But the Deputy Commissioner erroneously restricted the rectification which he made only to the periods antecedent to 1st October, 1958. It is clear from the decision of this Court in Govindaraju Chetty v. Commercial Tax Officer([1968] 22 S.T.C. 46; 10 L.R. 605.) that in the cases referred to above, the clear enunciation is that notwithstanding the amendment of section 8(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the provision of section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act remains unaffected.

(3.) The Sales Tax Tribunal which did not have any doubt that that was the true position, refused to make the modification of the order made by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that in an appeal preferred under section 22 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act the Appellate Tribunal could not allow the petitioner to question the order made by the Deputy Commissioner in the exercise of jurisdiction under section 21 of the Act.