Karnataka High Court
M/S. Global Stone India Limited vs The State Of Karnataka Throuth The ... on 21 April, 2009
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH comm OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATEI) THIS THE 21s: DAY 01: APRIL, 2Q09'_ *._V BEFORE THE HOWESLE MR. JUSTICE 2:).v.s2~«iY.i.;-E:§;j:3~.:2';$;.T.}<t;MAR..
WRIT PETITION No 94:32 Q:if"2_0U9 *:fr'~%1§Es;._ " ' _ AN1::«L * é WRIT PETITION N0._4_11360._OF 209. 'r{.;f--R£:s):-1 BETWEEN :
1 M] 3. GLOBAL ST-:};~;.E§'--I_N:f);VA'''L3,[Mfi'EI:) # 5:2, A GS LAYOUT-, NEW BE-L._VRD;'V_~. _ BANGAL_<::--R_1a:
'I'HROUG.E§I__MR =55: N--;A.JENIi§R£§- MEQSEAGER 55041054 _ = ' (B§r' "Sr; sHA$;~11§ HAS:AN, ADV. FOR " _ V-.%:~+i/s;_-.¢1<Az\g;AT1-«i &;~a:AMATH, ADV. ) 'V T1~§i3?.':_ STATE 01:' KARNATAKA M V-.T¥1'R*C')UT§{ THE PRINCIFAL sacs? ~. FINANACE DEPARTMENT '\fIDHANA soumm, BANGALORE} ' 'THE COMMISSIONER 0?
COMMERICAL TAXES IN KARNATAKA VT K BUILSING GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE PETITIONER.
RE$P(3NDEN'I'S. (By Sri KM. SH¥VA'YOGISWAMY, HCGP) THESE \V.Ps. FILED UNDER ARTICLE'.-S"2*26uAl*{'.D=22'Z OF THE CONS'I'§'I'U'l'i0N, PRAYENG ':0 VQUASE-'I ma ._I_MP-U'GN;EDT CiRCULAR/ CLAR§F'iC)ATI()N 1)'r.3.=.;2.eaT,A.vI13E AANN:Ajv-%L1_s:3UED BY THE R2, BY ISSLHNG A WRITKO£?_ CERTIQRARI '>:322 A_NY OTHER ORDER OR BIRE1Cf"£'1(2'.1f~I IN7".I_'I?i£31 N.:c£*u:?E 035' WRH' DECLARW3 THE SAME AS §LLE~€3AL, ARBITR;ARY AND ALSO §SSUED WITHOUT JURiSDICTI€3'f{.'V . THESE PE'I'ITIOI'§4 S'"' - C<.'§M;:§i;«._V_ FOR" £>RELIM;NARY i-HEARING THIS mv, THE'c;0{sR'r FOLLOWING: 'Writ: 'ig-y"a:g§§a1¢1'"w:3r}0_is assessed to tax under the Added Tax Act, 2003.
2. It, apps3.é.i*:é;'-..'afjtztitiozier was aggrieved by the
3.SS(3SS§I}(3u§'it_' érdé1'.pVe2s$e§i¥'L'against him under the provisions '_ of __}'ar:§: ._1f;gs pI'€feI'}."r-3d an appeal to the Joint 'C<iznmi$SiQ12éi* Qf Commercial Taxes.
3.A It,___va§ji€érs, in the meanwhile, the-: COIZ}f}.iI1iSSi{)I"1€I' <3? TfiX€S has caused 21 Circular No. 12/200809 ::i_ atc§i 3.12.2808, copy cf which is produced as Annexure-A
-~t<:$ '(ha Writ pefitian, ant} circulated amongst all authorities V"
including the appeliate authority functioning *.1I1'4€',1;<fj3d1V"*::4§Té:f}§j Act to agaprisc them, that some of the dealers wI:1 o before the appellate authcarity arei_iA1j;_the the statutory forrns such as I9'01:#.1«1s::'_{3A, V' enable them to claim C€I"'£E1§J%)5v"€f§.)VI1(I£(%A$'fi#iV:GI} before the appeliate LAth«fijz" not have flied such forms befoVI'é*.;z;I.1e .: §ut_;110I'it_3,z' but wouid seek commenrgmfatg rtfgiiéfif such forms, for the fiI'St firge' and it had been found so pm-duced for the first tima ¥:3<":fo:i'c:.._ t;'!.:@ authority were not genuine but V. " furgséii é__6cy1mefii3.,;anci therefore has caused a circtflar ta ggt" -.t.he '~g€;1ii1i.neness or otherwise; that such farms §fod'uCed assesses for the fmst time befere the a§)pv8§'l&Eif£§«;3LLV1t}10I'iiy are to be verified from 3 common Source "fs:1;C&i"~«_.as Additional Commissioner of Commerciai Taxes ' (ifiateliigence and Coordination) who has been entrusted wi4t11 such responsibiiity to cause verification of '(ha genuinefiess of the statL1toI'y farms (etc; and E0 go by 1:113 V result of such verification for tha purpose of otherwise of the claims of the appefiants . _ . V V _
4. It is aggrieved by this cixfcular' . the i petitions am filsci contending tha{t--. the " of":
nature virtually amounts to ififezrgferemcé' iI1 'i1'4ie égercise of the appellate powers by
5. the petitioner, Sri Shashidfimgix,' wouid s1.1b1:z1it that the C«OII1IHiSSi0I}f§1".fl0 vdcsubt iarfenabied to issue administrative "V':%r:_str'Q£{'3tic;ns Vundef't1--;é:*'pr0visions of sectien 59 of the Act held to be net a power enabling the CoIr1';:_1issiQ:ie:{ji:o interfere with the funciioning of an ~ 1..4._;1ppe1lat€._'_ auth0:'ity in the £i':X6I'{3iSf: 0f c;uasi«-j1.1dicial V' f'é;{t}ctj{:}{i}s; tfiiat the Cir-:::u1ar virtuaiiy amounts to .Ai{ I;t;c:i'i"ereI1c€ and therefere the circular is bad in law and ' A" iéhouid be quashed.
V
6. A perusal of the circular mdica%géAs' me Commissioner is issuing circtxlaij o.ft_his wake of several assessees putt.iI1g forth.Afa3i'se~ "
fake and forged (Ii0CL1l'Il€3I1tSV.»x
7. Verification of' document is not necessariiy a.pae't..of and outside the "b;:1t _ treefiicafion of this nature more is a matter which even ftmctionary may have to depend velii information and support. The " _'ciré§;iia:;#.eVAo;1ly iII 1 'resses upon the appellate authorities to _ _ "guidance when certain ciocumezzts are efoeiueed first time before the appeilate azjthority. V .V 8. If--such is the nature of the Circular, no exception can in respect of the legaiity of the circular as the
-- does not directiy interfere with the exercise of the " Hkiuassjudicial powers by the appellate authority. V
9. It is for the appellate authority, if it is ir2e§lt'1ecl'Vj't.g' e.et as per the circular, make it known ,teo_the ezsseééseee abczut' the genuineness or otherwise of the dc}€:'L1i11e13_ts t;E11ey have produced and proeeededliirihee i¥:.l:;e_ xijeitéeve... -
10. if an appellate authority has got 'the itleeurrxent verified for its genuineneee ariel :iefl:i,§(ely..te rejeeif it on the basis of the expert opinig1_1:l' eoeument to be not - genuine, "'e1:§pell'afi;e---«~VV:a:.1the:*ity should necessatfly notice about the propesal and the ouleeine fieiifieafion of an appellate authority " 'eheuggf. pegged avfiitheut apyrising an appellant of such the appellant can definitely complain ' " abc.>'1:1;_rti1ev_ ef the appellate authority. Such being e.__:;s:r15: the cefuplaént in the present petiticms and on the other jeubmission of Mr. Shashidheran, learned emmsel for the petitioner being that the appellate iéulitherity has already heard the matter and reserved it for orders, {here is no oeeasiexl to interfere with the V/ N4 functioning at' the Cemmissioxaer on the circular nor an OCC&1SiO}fl t0 quash f;¥1::~.': ,cirt:111éi*§ " "
3.2. It is for the petifioner t:3T%;§u.:fsue't1;;e wn;atte:{m%£gi~e tI"14::
appellate authority. Without tf1ése..pefitions are dismissed.
age