M E C WIRES Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these cases, the question that has been raised is, whether, while exercising appellate power under section 24 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), this Court has inherent power to stay the operation of the order appealed against.

(2.) AGAINST the orders made under section 22-A of the Act, an appeal is provided to this Court under the Act. Sub-section (4) of section 24 of the Act makes reference to sub-sections (6) to (8) of section 23 of the Act as being applicable to appeals. Sub-section (6) of section 23 reads as follows :

(3.) IN the instant case, Mr. Sarangan, the learned counsel for one of the appellants sought to contend that sub-section (6) of section 23 of the Act would have to be read as a reiteration of the liability of the assessee to pay the tax and cannot be regarded as a bar on the power of this Court to grant stay of the operation of the impugned order. He further contended by placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Income-tax Officer, Cannanore v. M. K. Mohammed Kunhi [1969] 71 ITR 815, that the scope of the power of an Appellate Tribunal includes the power to grant stay of recovery proceedings pending an appeal, being an incidental and ancillary power by implication. The observations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant pertains to a reference under section 254 of the Income-tax Act. In the instant case, it cannot be inferred in the face of the statutory provisions referred to above that there is an inherent power vested in this Court to stay the impugned order.