AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In these writ petitions, the petitioner who has filed appeals under Section 22 of the Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the appeals which undisputedly were filed on 29-6-2004 by applying the provisions of law as it stood on the date when these appeals were filed.
Writ petitions are filed on the premise that notwithstanding the appeals having been filed on 29-6-2004, the Appellate Authority is examining the maintainability of the appeals in the light of the amendment to the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, of the year 2004 which has come into force from 1-8-2004.
Submission of Sri Satyanarayan, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal is not justified in examining the maintainability of the appeals with reference to the state of law as it prevails on the date when the appeals were taken up for judicial scrutiny or listed for admission and orders before the Tribunal, but should have examined the appeals in the light of the law as it stood on 29-6-2004 when the appeals were filed i.e., by applying Section 22(3) of the Act as it stood on 29-6-2004.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Tribunal has unnecessarily dragged on the proceedings by listing the matter for admission and maintainability of the appeals and has heard arguments in the light of the legal provision as it obtained subsequent to the amendment to Section 22(3) of the Act on and after 1-8-2004. In the circumstances, a writ in the nature of mandamus is sought for to direct the Tribunal to consider the appeals in the light of the law as it prevailed on the date these appeals were filed.
Notices had been issued to the respondents. I have heard Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents.
Learned Government Pleader submits that the Tribunal having already heard on the maintainability of the appeals and having reserved the same for orders, it is not necessary for this Court to issue any further direction and the Tribunal is likely to pronounce orders for the same and the matter is not concluded on this aspect before the Tribunal and that is why orders have not been passed. Learned Government Pleader submits that the appeals are now listed for reply of the State representative namely the maintainability of the appeals and is likely to be taken up on 27-1-2005 and therefore there is no occasion for this Court to issue any mandamus.
A perusal of the order sheet which is produced at Annexure-F in the writ petitions clearly indicate that the Tribunal has proceeded to examine the appeals filed by the petitioner only in the light of the law as it stands subsequent to the amendment given effect to on 1-8-2004 to the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. In my view, that is a wholly unnecessary exercise which the Tribunal has indulged in. The law as it stood on 29-6-2004 alone should have been the criteria for examining the appeals particularly for maintaining the appeals. The change brought about particularly under Section 22(3) of the Act is that the appeals filed on or after 1-8-2004 unless accompanied by 50% of the tax or other amount disputed in the appeal, the appeal cannot be entertained. That was not the position prior to this amendment. There was no such condition for maintainability of the appeals.
In the circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed. Writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the Tribunal to consider the appeals in the light of the statutory provisions as it stood on the day when the appeals were filed before the Tribunal i.e., on 29-6-2004 and proceed further in the matter.
Having regard to the fact that the appeals though had been filed more than six months earlier, they had remained on board on the unnecessary question of maintainability in the light of the amended provision, the Tribunal to dispose of the appeals expeditiously.