Mohamed Iqbal Khan vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

M.P. Chinnappa, J.—Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

The petitioner is a dealer and a sales tax assessee. It is contended that the respondent has directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 5,775 and Rs. 1,11,247 respectively for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 respectively. It is further contended that the respondent has initiated proceedings u/s 13(3)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act before the learned Munsiff and Additional JMFC, Sagar. The petitioner has filed his objections and contended that subsequently he has paid the entire due and in the process of transfer of the records from the office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Sagar, to Davangere, this fact was not treated as closed, However, the learned Magistrate directed issue of FLW against the respondent. That order is questioned in this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when once the objection is filed contending that the petitioner has paid the entire amount, it was incumbent on the court below to consider the objections as held by this Court in a decision reported in 1973 (2) Kar LJ 547 (Rahim Khan v. State of Karnataka). Admittedly the court below has not taken into consideration the objections filed by the petitioner. Therefore it is against the decision rendered by the division Bench of this Court wherein it is held that when the assessee contends that the tax has been fully or partly discharged, it is the duty of the court before whom recovery is sought, to take evidence and then decide whether the whole or any part of the tax assessed is outstanding. Only on this short point the petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed directing the learned court below to give an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in support of his objections filed before the court. After the evidence so recorded, the learned Magistrate shall proceed to pass orders in accordance with law and in the light of the decision rendered by the division Bench referred to above.