Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Trading Co. vs Commercial Tax Officer, Ii Circle, ... on 13 July, 1970
Equivalent citations: (1970)2MYSLJ, [1971]28STC144(KAR)
ORDER Govinda Bhat, J.
1. The petitioner is a dealer carrying on business in coriander among other commodities. For the year ended 31st March, 1964, the petitioner's turnover in respect of coriander was Rs. 1,69,074.79. The Commercial Tax Officer who is the respondent, by his assessment order dated 16th March, 1965, exempted the aforesaid turnover from tax holding that coriander falls within the meaning of the term "other oil-seeds" under section 5(4) read with entry No. 5(d) of the Fourth Schedule of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. On 22nd March, 1969, the respondent issued to the petitioner a notice under section 12-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Act proposing to bring to assessment the aforesaid turnover relating to coriander which had been exempted earlier. It is stated in the notice that according to the expert opinion of the Head of the Genetics Division, I.A.R.I., New Delhi, so far as this country is concerned, the major use of coriander is as a spice and condiment and it should not be classified as an oil-seed and in the light of the said expert opinion, the exemption allowed earlier was incorrect.
2. The petitioner has challenged the said notice on two grounds. First, that coriander falls within the meaning of the term "other oil-seeds" under the Act. Secondly, that the disputed turnover in question was expressly exempted from tax under the original assessment order and that when the said turnover was before the assessing authority and exempted by him, it cannot be contended that the said turnover is an escaped turnover to tax.
3. Since we are in agreement with the second ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is unnecessary for us to express any opinion on the first ground.
4. In S.T.R.P. Nos. 30, 31 and 32 of 1968 (Since reported as A. Misrimal Jain & Co. and Others v. State of Mysore [1971] 28 S.T.C. 137) we have held that where a particular turnover is before the assessing authority and that turnover is exempted by him, the same turnover cannot be brought to assessment under section 12-A of the Act as the turnover cannot be said to have escaped assessment. We relied on the decision in State of Kerala v. Appukutty . In Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax v. Dhanalakshmi Vilas Cashew Company , the Supreme Court has held that where a particular income was before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer and the same was exempted, the provision for assessing escaped income cannot be invoked or bringing such income to tax. The said decision has been applied to a sales tax case in State of Kerala v. K. E. Nainan ([1969] 24 S.T.C. Short Notes 2; since reported at ) decided by the Supreme Court. The above decisions of the Supreme Court fully support our view expressed in S.T.R.P. Nos. 30, 31 and 32 of 1968 (Since reported as A. Misrimal Jain & Co. and Others v. State of Mysore [1971] 28 S.T.C. 137). Therefore under section 12-A the respondent has no jurisdiction to assess the turnover exempted earlier.
5. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and the impugned notice dated 22nd March, 1969, is quashed. No costs.
6. Petition allowed.