Disposed

The Commissioner of v. M/S Hotel Sitara

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2019STRP/100018/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judges disposed off sales tax revision petitions against a hotel proprietor who filed an undertaking to pay pending tax dues under the Comprehensive Karasamadhana Scheme, 2019, and a government order granting penalty and interest waiver. The issue regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction to condone delay was left open.

What did the court decide?

Sales Tax Revision Petitions disposed off in terms of the respondent's affidavit undertaking to pay tax dues under the Comprehensive Karasamadhana Scheme, 2019.

The Commissioner of Vs M/S Hotel Sitara — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL 2019

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BELLUNKE A.S.

¶8

S.T.R.P. NOS.100018/2015

¶9

& 100038-47/2015 & 100003/2016

¶10

¶11

S.T.A.NOS.1441-1452/2013

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU

¶14

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT-2), HUBBALLI

¶15

… PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAVI HOSAMANI, AGA)

¶17

AND:

¶18

M/S. HOTEL SITARA NEAR OLD BUS STAND HUBBALLI.

¶19

… RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. SANTOSH NARGUND, ADV.)

¶21

THESE STRPs ARE FILED UNDER 65(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2014 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN STA NOS.1441 TO 1452/2013 FOR THE YEAR 2005-06 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

¶23

THESE STRPs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned AGA for the petitioners and the

¶26

learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

The petitioners are the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru and the CTO (Audit 2), Hubballi.

¶28

The matter was heard and after arguing the matter for sometime, the respondent’s counsel sought for time. Today the respondent assessee is present and files an affidavit which reads as under:

¶29

“1. I am the Respondent in the above said petition and I am proprietor of Hotel Sitara near Old Bus Stand Hubballi, I know the facts and circumstances of the above said case, hence I am swearing to this affidavit.

¶30

2. That, in the top noted matter I am the tax payer and as per the comprehensive Karasamadhana Scheme, 2019, I have to pay the tax amount of Rs.91,873/- on or before 15.09.2019.

¶31

¶32

3. That I will pay the remaining amount of Rs.91,873/- as fixed by the Government on or before 15.09.2019.

¶33

4. That, the sum of Rs.39,500/- is already paid through State Bank of India Challan on 15.03.2014, and the remaining amount of Rs.91,873/- is to be paid.

¶34

5. That I undertake to pay the remaining amount of Rs.91,873/- on or before 15.09.2019, to the Commercial Tax Officer, (Audit)-3.” 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has also placed on record a Government Order being the proceedings of the Government of Karnataka bearing No.FD 9 CSL 2019, Bengaluru dated 21.02.2019.

¶35

We have perused the government order. Under the said Government Order, the Government has accorded approval for the scheme called Comprehensive Karasamadhana Scheme, 2019. Under the scheme, more particularly, under clause 1, the Government proposes to grant waiver of 100% of arrears of penalty and interest payable by a dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

¶36

¶37

The learned AGA also fairly submits that the respondent is a dealer who is entitled to avail the benefits of the scheme.

¶38

The said submissions are placed on record.

¶39

The respondent was running a hotel establishment under the name and style of ‘Sitara Bar and Restaurant’ had filed monthly returns in Form VAT120 for the tax period of 2003. The CTO (TPS) 1, Hubballi issued a notice dated 19.01.2007 under Rule 35 calling for production of books of accounts and other documents as required under Section 52(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The respondent failed to respond to the notice nor did he appear before the Assessing Authority. In that view of the matter, ex parte preposition notice was issued on 11.01.2008 and as the respondent failed to respond to the same also an ex parte order came to be passed by the revision petitioner on 25.01.2008 and as on 25.01.2008 dues to the revenue was quantified at Rs.1,76,961/-. But by

¶40

¶41

then, the respondent had wound up his business and left the premises.

¶42

That the respondent thereafter appeared before the Authorities on 25.09.2012 and proceeded to prefer an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Dharwad on 28.01.2013. The said appeal was registered as Appeal No.504-515/2012-13 which came to be rejected by order dated 06.03.2013 on the ground of delay alone.

¶43

Aggrieved, the respondent approached the Sale Tax Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. Nos.14411452/2013. The S.T.A. proceeded to condone the delay and was further pleased to allow the appeal and remand the matter back to the Assessing Authority for the fresh disposal on merits within 120 days.

¶44

The learned AGA would vehemently contend that the condonation of delay is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act, as the S.T.A. is not vested with any jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period stipulated under Section 63(2) of the Karnataka Value

¶45

¶46

Added Tax Act, 2003 and under Section 22(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.

¶47

Though the contention merits consideration, we are of the opinion that the same as being rendered of academic value in view of the undertaking by the respondent to pay the remaining tax dues by resorting to the comprehensive Karasamadhana Scheme, 2019. The affidavit of the respondent is taken on record.

¶48

The Sales Tax Revision Petitions are disposed off in terms of the affidavit dated 05.04.2019. The issue pertaining to jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay beyond the stipulated period is left open to be agitated and adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding.

¶49

Accordingly, the Sales Tax Revision Petitions stand

disposed off.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

Rsh

The Commissioner of v. M/S Hotel Sitara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of v. M/S Hotel Sitara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramachandra @ Ramachandra Poojari Vs Karibasappa J.H. S/O. Jogikatte Hanumanthappa

Sri.Basappa @ Basavaraj S/O Venkappa Pujari Vs Shri.Venkappa Hanamappa Mullur

Smt.Asha W/O Upendra Chandachal, Vs Upendra S/O Chandrakant Chadachal

Parvathi Khemu Padti, Vs the Slao

Shri.Mahadev Vs the Karnataka Lokayukta

Suresh S/O Shamarayappa Muragoda Vs the State of Karnataka