HUKUMCHAND & CO. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under section 23(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short, "the Act") directed against the order dated October 31, 2008 in S. T. A. Nos. 39 of 2008 and 40 of 2008 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, which is an order in the series of second round orders invoking the jurisdiction under section 25A of the Act through an application dated September 17, 2007 which was an application enabled by the observations made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore as per its order dated April 30, 2007 before whom the assessee-dealer had tried its chance by a like application under section 25A of the Act.

(2.) The rectification application was filed in respect of an ex parte assessment order dated February 25, 2000 which was affirmed in the first appeal by the Joint Commissioner, suffered the same fate in the second appeal before the appellate Tribunal and was also unable to get over these orders as the dealer's revision petition S. T. R. P. No. 76 of 2005 was dismissed as per order dated December 7, 2005 passed by this court.

(3.) With all these failed attempts, the matter should have seen its end, but the enterprising, undaunted assessee chanced its arm by filing an application under section 25A of the Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, contending that the original assessment order passed by the assessing authority determining the liability of the assessee in respect of inter-State sales turnover which had been taxed at ten per cent was not correct; that the assessing authority had passed the order under the mistaken impression that it was at ten perent whereas in reality in terms of the Government Notification No. FD 32 CSL 86(5), Bangalore, dated March 26, 1986, the rate of tax in respect of sale of cardamom to a situation covered under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Act, was four per cent and the assessee claiming that its case was covered under this notification, mistake was required to be rectified and further as the Tribunal was the highest fact finding authority in the hierarchy of the assessment procedure and the appeals, the application had been filed before the Tribunal.