High Courts(1994) 07 KAR CK 0036

Shree Raghavendra Enterprises, Hubli vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Assessments, Hubli

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 26 July 1994 · Citation: (1995) 39 KarLJ 72

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Rajendra Babu, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 21106 of 1994

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 336 words
1.

Considering the nature of the matter, at my instance Smt. Vidya - Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader and after issue of rule, the matter is finally disposed of. Notice to respondent is dispensed with since the learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice on its behalf.

2.

The petitioner made an application as contemplated under Section 12-D(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (''the Act'' for short) for cancellation of the assessment for the period between 1-4-1990 to 30-3-1991. In respect of the said application, another application was filed to adjourn the matter by a week and that application came to be rejected stating that reasonable opportunity had already been given and therefore, time sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and proceeded to reject the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12-D(1) of the Act. In these circumstances, this petition is filed challenging the order made by the respondent.

3.

It may be that on earlier occasion case might have been adjourned, and that would be only on the basis that there was a reasonable ground on which adjournment was granted. But the question now for consideration is whether there is any justifiable ground for adjournment. That aspect was not borne in mind at all by the concerned authority before rejecting the application for grant of adjournment or to proceed to pass the impugned order. In the circumstances, the order made by the respondent suffers from non-compliance with principles of natural justice in not affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner for adjourning the case.

In the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure-D shall stand quashed. The petitioner shall appear before the authority concerned on 16-8-1994 and take further direction in the matter.

Petition allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. Smt. Vidya, learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file her memo of appearance in eight weeks.