S. Sivanesan vs State of Karnataka

S. Rajendra Babu, J.-Assessments for the year 1985-86 under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act were concluded on 10-9-1986. As against the order made by the Commercial Tax Officer, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Vigilance), initiated proceedings under Section 22-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act in respect of the assessment concluded under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. He held that, for the assessment period 1985-86 the tax liability of the assessee was at Rs. 78,729/- which exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer under the notification issued by the Commissioner. Therefore, the assessment order was considered to be one passed without jurisdiction and accordingly declared the same as null and void and the case was remanded for fresh disposal to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. No action had been taken by the petitioner-Assessee in respect of the assessment concluded under the Central Sales Tax Act.

An appeal had been filed against that order before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). The Appellate Authority held that the Central Sales Tax assessment for the year 1985-86 is void as the Commercial Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to decide the same, in view of the fact that the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Vigilance) had already upheld that he had no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the matter. When the matter was carried in further appeal, this view of the Appellate Authority was affirmed by the Tribunal. Hence, these petitions.

So far as the assessment arising under the Karnataka Sales Tax is concerned, the question as to the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer having been held to be null and void could not be raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal at all because the order made by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had become final as the same had not been appealed to this Court.

So far as the order made by the Deputy Commissioner as affirmed by the Tribunal is concerned, must be affirmed, though on a different footing. The issue before the Joint Commissioner was whether the Commercial Tax Officer had jurisdiction to deal with the matter or not. He was of the view that he did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to deal with such matter. When that issue had been decided in that manner, by reason of the principle of estoppel it was no longer open to the petitioner to raise that ground once over again in any other proceedings. Therefore, the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and by the Tribunal in this regard appears to us to be correct. Otherwise, it would lead to anomalous situation because for one purpose he will have jurisdiction over the matter and for another purpose he will not have the jurisdiction. Therefore, it would be appropriate to uphold the order made by the Tribunal. Petitions are rejected.