Master B R Ritesh vs State Of Karnataka on 22 June, 2010

[Cites 7, Cited by 6]

Karnataka High Court

Master B R Ritesh vs State Of Karnataka on 22 June, 2010

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF JUNE 2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYR4--A«k'E:DA'i'?'\Y  =

WRIT PETETION N0. I881l.:0F.2(){)9TTAKTSITV'   A'

A/W WRiT PETETION No. 18962  5

WP.No.188H/2009

I.

_[\.}

BETWEEN :

Master B.R. Ritesh
Aged about I I years,

S/0 Sri. BB.vR.2ivi_s_ha1Tka1f ' 

Mzisiéi' BRA. .T";iﬂha1£T%j_é"i: 
Aged,;1be)ut .I 1' 'y:€:2-1_1';s,._   ' .
S/0 Sri; VBLB. R:?.1_\/i11lv"'1.'Jl1Vi§'£@l;;'". 

i{€ﬁ~}}i'6$€11[€ki Vby'théi1' hT0the:'
Ami g_pm*diz111. S'mI._....S..S. Ashe-1,

V" « .  years,

A  Wfo 'f3v1fi"B';'B,"Ravishankau',

'AI1 ::11'c_ R'c;{éj.':d"::Tg at

 SiL'lda:* Krupa.
J odi' B__:t"5aiv21n:Ta Road,

 A 'K-Lgvempu Nagar,
'  " -M_}5s<)1'em570 023.

.__PE'FITEOE\EERS



id

(By Shri. G.RabinaEhz1n & Shri. M. Thiru1na}esl1, Ad\/ocaies)
AND:

1. State 0fKz1rnataka

Represented by Primsipal Secretary
to Government,

Finance Department,

Government of KarnataI<a,
Vidhana Soudha,

Bz111gz110re--»56() 00] .

§\)

Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes Ka1'nata.E<z1 'T "
Valzaijyzi Therige K31-yaiaya.
Gandhinagar,

.Banga'l01'e--56O 009.

3. DepuiyV_C0m.miS's;i,g)1)c1i_()f ~. «.
C(.a1mé1e1*Ci:r!. z_1xeéf,  ' "
AudiE.._i5;   --.
Va11i_j§,A/:1 VT'i1erigL._ K;iV1'yztiz1_y a;. 
Gz:11di1inVii:Ji1Ai',., '. ' " V. 
_Bz1;1ga 10 112-5 6! )' 009.

V" 2_  . VC6 m #155 :1: _iL1*l _Tz1 X Officer

'  ( k't2cT.f(j)'v.c':A1"5{')"- {*2

 ._ I"??Io(31*,.Ahaksahﬁii Complex,

' { ,Main _R'(>L2i{:.i;T"
Se"shz1d.1'.ipu"1'a1m,

 _Bz111g:,1_i0re-56() 020. .  RES PONDENTS

A  TV.'('B'y..S}ﬁ5ri. KM. Shivayogiswamy, High Court Govemmem Pieader

'  foij respondent no.1 to 4)

WPNO. 18962/2009

BETWEEN:

M1'. BB. R21vishz1nka1' Aged 21b0ut42 years, -

S/0 S1-i. B.C. Basavaruj One of the parmers of M/S. Indian St£ll1d'c'1I'Li Const1'ucti(ms_, No. _l 2, Upper Pipeline Road, ' Kumam Park West. ' fg Banga1()1'e~56{} 020. ' * ...'.'PETITIONER (By Shri. G. R21binV21t11an Advocates) AND: Q

1. Siate of K'a.1'1i"':t*i;}ga1 b . .. A I{e.pi*eSe1a'te.difeby Pi§'ii1e'i'p;«1:1'-Sec13eim"y ToQ0ve;*nme'a:i;.._ ' -- f Finalise Depa_:jt:*1*.<;%_e's~1.Vt_.;' ~.. _ . .4 G()ve1'mn_e"m of"Kzir112:t;1 k;z1, V,id.han:1 -S'eL_:VC1h;1,.'-- "

VB1111gi¥lc.>:'e--56'(}..(){V)I . _ ' ' C0m_:T1ie<{s«i_0i"ue;' of Commercial "{1}.-) , . =I'T21'xe.é;f"Ki1rﬁm.t9ak21, ' . 'Vanijya-- eThr;":1'ige Karyaizlya, "G2111{j'i1ina'gar, Bzr~11_g£:1() 1'e--~5 60 009.

Deptlty C0mmissi0ne.r of Commercial Taxes, Audii 15, DVOJ, Vanijya The1'ige Karyalfaya, Gundhinagar, Bz1:1ga1Io1"e--5o() 009.

4. Commercial Tax Officer (ReCove.ry)-- I 2.

I Floor, LaI<shm_i Complex, 1 Main Road, ._ Seshad1'ipL11'a:n, I BangaIore.--56() 020.

5. Smt. Manjula Nagaraj Aged about 58 years, W/o Sri. C. Nagaraj _ One ofthe partners of _ g AA M/s. Indian Standard C()nS¥1fuc.{it5ris, " V No.I2, Upper 'Pipe Lin'e"I"I{o;:It:l_ I' ' KL1:'11z1:"21Pa1s'I{ 'Ba11ga1I()ff:T I --. V' .

6. Sri. Aged abouté 60 S/o Late' S-,1jiI. D . R ._ Cfi1_a1'1': 1}Iéi':"L1LI:'a1ia1h. C)neo'ftI1e 'pa-'.1'_L1'1'ers of §I.1I(;Ii£}11 St;1I":da1.1f::'l«Co11si1'uc:£ions.

«.oz_\%'(.;.:i2,.'&z_E_ppge~,1~ Pipe Line Road, " KL: sniuin {?étr..I_<I West, . III3.;1E1g€1If5_:fr3__. I ,..RE.'SPONDENTS Ig_(By Shivayogiswumy, High Court Government Pleader 1'or; respondent no. I to 4, S§1_ri.'S.N. AsI1wath:1z11'ayana1, Advocaie for responciem no.5 & 6, Su1'yapr:1I<ash, for respondent no.7) 6 These Writ Petitions is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of Ihdizt praying to quash the proelatrriatiohdated l7.(}6.20()9 issued by Commercial Tax Offieer(Rec_oV_ei7yi}:l2, Bangalore for auction sale of the property situate n;....s4m{ves.;;a;N9. 98/2 in Marase Village, Varunzi I-Iobli. Mys<);_fe:--. Annexui-e--N. These Writ Petitions coming ol;i Court made the i'c.)llowit1g: - ' " i " ~ "

0iDii Heard the Counsel' the responideiits.

2. The shots ieadin follows;

The they are represented by thei:'l'mt.)tl1'e:::.llilylwiothat she alongwith her husband and minor Cl]ll(ll'eIltivI'€- ili.vii'ig"t<.):i;ethe1' in the same house at Mysore. '"~,_li is._':t:io1tEteh;Eecl tlT¢l{«..._Il1.€' petitioneﬁs husband Rm/i.shanl<a1:*, has been "i§1di~1°ferte'i1.tlinsofar as the iieeds and interests of the minor cltiitglreii areiconcernied and it is she who has always stood by the l i'ehild1'eh».;1;id has sought to ensure their well-being and welllue. . i3li(:~-l1:;id compelled her husband to execute it Deed of Gift on i " i .2005 to transfer certain property held in his name in favour of 6 6 the petitioners and such :1 Deed of Gift. has been duly registered as on 12.1.2005. This was the self--;tcqui1"ed property of §14€v1fv_:11.ttSb_t1I1d being hrnd in survey 110.98/I-Z rtreetstrrfirrg about 5 ;t.ei:e.<A{s'§'.1'fVle21r"a.$er.V Viliage, Vzutrna Hobli, Mysore Ttthr}<-.._ 'I=_"heM"peItiti()'ne*rV h_;1$u' produced the relevant revenue' property.

It W33 three 3T'tf§t {required the pmpelty that he was inctLAtAL;t.<_'.V:<hiA~:.é.,x'h..;';'r_V Ffiir-tn known as M/s Indian of business at Ba11g21it)r_'e_,Vv' in the year 1994 with three K.R'.Mahesh. C .Nt1g;11'aj and Manjulu. to have died on 1 1.12.2004 and till he »va,<"inc.E3.:1t'~ge of the _21f't11r_r's of the firm and after him, N£'i_gti!.'Et;§'w_.£iI'('Jﬂ_gV's1i{h Manjula were running the btrsiness. The petitioner."Shtlkband Ravishankar was a dorrnant partner. 'It, stated that the 'firm was sttbjected to assessment under ' --.{;11'n;ttaka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ' the 'Act' for brevity') and an E-1SS€5..;Sm€I}{ order wars paused for the t% 7 ztssessment years; 2()()2-2()()3, 2(')()3--20()4 and 2()04~--2()O5. These were orders passed ex-;_)c1rr€ and tot:.-ti and taxable turnovers were determined to the best of judgment and demand nt)t£eeS'--.ewete thereafter issued as per the following details:

Assessment Amoum ofTe;1x T Amount of Tax ._ V' ' Year Levied de'r1_1ar1d'ed zi.:1 the de.m'2md"

4n_oti'e_es iss;11ed..;ts'* . «.

outst:-tnding b1'.t§V'c1'l'i';.;£$'_ 2002-03 69,522 ?_O03~{)4 33,59,332 33,59,382' 200405 8,693.4; _ ;;§,67.t)3svv«..

T'11e = that for the years 2()()3--()4 and 20()4--?.O()5:t£1§Se.ssVri1.ertt'._ " o.rd'e1's were passed on 28.11.2007 and 'V..v_de:1.i§t'i*:r'lE.gtotj_ces We1'e....is'sued on 9.1.2008. raising :1 demand for ";§1'tfezirs for 20()3~»2004 and Rs.8.67 lakh as arrears for A notice -was issued by the Recovery Officer on i7.3.2t)'d95 in Form No.44, for recovery of the balance amount of 't;_tx'--pert;1i_ni':1g to the firm for the ztforesaid years and 21 notice in "'"Ft()r'1at No.48 was issued as being :1 notice. of attachment of 6 i z1_f'o'i'e_sia irlvi ";

iinrnoveable property. iirelticiing the aforesaid property belonging to the minor petitioners.

The petitioner acting as; the guardian of the"-..it*:i._nor petitioners had fiied a reply objecting to such ztttzielnrieittii to her Ietter, an endorsement dated 2.();4.»2(}AO9fuiwtteii "i:.i,s4iieidv.i1h?1f-31 it charge was created in the name of Ra«vis'l-ianka1'."the'~ gu«.21rd:_i'2ii.r('if the. petitioners herein and {h€i'Cf()il"€3%,i'"L7h»C aittz1ehn"ie:i'tji notiee' was in V order and aceordingiy, r"eje~etedxtheiehjeeiion ofthe°petitione1's. {hspite of further eoii1inurrie'iatio:t'in ti-1«i.s"'iie*g;ii:d, there was no response from the ii'er.p<irit:ieiit$,"Except 'the-properties being under threat ()v'f_ASi1i€' in i*e::':mA/Ae.i'y4of_t'he'ai}eged dues of the firm. It is in this baekgi*oin.1di the 13l'6Sﬁ1itv.}jC{iti()11 is fiied. ffheivtC()uii§ei*for the petitioner while efaborating on the >quien_ee.of events wouid stitirnit that at scheme of the Act »iwtire_to1.t'_a$:.teii1s the tiability on a dearer is apparentiy with V!iCf€E7'€l1C6"I.Li provisions, whereby there is at voluntary statement of ._th~e"ta:t"iiabiiity purrguant to which, if there is a defauit. recovery 6 9 proceedings could be initiated or if the statement of the liability made is in suppression of the actual liability, then it would be for the atithorities to initiate pi'()eeediiigs and to determine. the _ili.;,1bi__lity and it is at which point, that at Cl1£i1'g€ could be saidto he on the properties belonging to the e(>nce»1*ne_d (l€f'z1l€!t.r'tl--i:]'illlﬁlristéilfltl case, the firm ht-wing filed its statement'.of'moiithiiy returns," hen/i'itg_ declared at nil tax liability, it is ohl.y'"'oii :1 fur.the~i:_dc:telI'mliliit1tii')i1 oi' the aileged tax liability, th'i1t..s_21 eh:1i"§e"c.ouid*be saidto be created in terms of Section l3{2) of tl1e'i-Aethf in t--he"i1i'svt;iiiit case, as is seen from the sec1ue:ieefo.il" evém, 'tissesseinent.o.rders were passed on

28.ll.2(li)7--.z1iid. doth;-iiid,spnotices were issued on 9.1.2008. The tratnsfer of the subject pt_'op.eif'ty in fztvour oi' the minor petitioners "V,.vi)til11.gl'}lt.)l'Eflit)_yCL1l'h2U':}5.i.«iE is inexplicable that it is soti§__:lit to be t:(i'ntei:i;led,_th2itr ._£1'eli;1rge has been created on the subject property. it is.__this_s.hl()if1'ilg_i'0ui1d on which the learned counsel for the id '*.__l"petiti_()ne:j__liwould expound by taking this court through the " , lteqle'a=':-i.:*it provisions to emphasize that the ailleged change said to 6 EU have been created on the subject property is without basis and wholly illegal.

Incidentally. the counsel for the petitione1's"ivmildi:st1bi'ivt--=..it~.9 that an appeal has been filed against the"'assess--i'nen<ti iC1iT(i€f$vp§1S§£idi A Wm».

on 28.12.2007 and the same has beeiiz.__ne:idiiigiii3ei1'erQ,thedoint Commissioner of Commercial Tai'xeV:§"l(Appea~l.'s--Ij)and "thatiwthe said authority has not cht)senvto"t:1l<e consider:1tit)n. In terms of Section 2_0 of Act. i957, an appeal is days froin the date of appeal having been heard, i'emainsV..oi1 inonths. the same is inexplicable. Therefore, the icounsel direction to the Joint Commissioner .__of C_omi't1e1'ct:,Mi21l Tia'xes...{Appeals--I), to expedite his decision on the _ the learned Gm/eifnment Advocate in support of f_*hVisi"s.t;1te.1nent of objections would contend that the petition is niisconceived. That in relation to assessment periods in question 5 ('if the pet'rt'roners herein rs oniy £1 ruse to avoid iiabrlrty and to scuttie the recovery proceedings. The Governme.nt_;»~.43g(i«.y'ot::1te seeks to place reiiance on a judgment of the Hrgh Court in SICIFC' 0fTamii Nadu and (lI'I()[h€i" 1-'Si '"'C'1'.--mver?ji A_.f.?Ti!ii?'I-(£3, 'I34, SVTC ' 562 and also on L1 judgment in K.P__.P1'--rmz.s'ct f:;.Icf'*»{)r1i.c3;:.i"~..Viass, A.\".s'zIs'Ic1rzI Commintone!-' of S'c7[e§§'e«r.VVi7Ei:x', [2(}€}:9]'=2i'tE} 72, to contend that any t1'a11sfere§__ v\'I~!_1ic1"1'ii triﬂe m.;_rci.e"dr1r'ir1g theipendency of recovery proceedirr or trf;.111§fe.1' of p1"(";-per'tyi..'e.it'he1' before or after the recovery _pi'ocei iii1i_ri£rt.ed i'w'o'uid be void and the authoritives_vcot:.1d"'yie£__pVr'oceed'agar-ihst the said property. He worrid therefor'e coirteiiciii"-:hat._4rrotwrthstaiitiing an alieged gift deed having beehvexectited 'r?.i1"res:§'pect of the said property in favour of ._the..':i_i'iino_ifi petitio1iei':::.,.._9irice it is obviousiy in order to avoid tax t'1£'ab_iiit.yi§"v«,_the._atrt11()i'ities are not preclLrde.d from proceedir1g 21gai_nst the "urine and there is hence no basis for the writ petition "*:1pt1 the vsﬁirre be dismisse.d.

5

5. Given the sequence of events, it is clear that the liability of the concerned firm has been determined much Subﬁvtltjtjueiill to the transfer made in favour of the minor ;)€illl()ﬁCI'S_.i.§3r {lliCil;_:ii'tlti.nS.l'i. Notwithstanding that he was a partner 'o"l'»-the l'5t1'1n..iiasiI,ori"th_e_ datei' of the such transfer is wholly immatetii__al;--_iiTheiiii.abi'lity i' been fastened on the said fii'rnii'nt1"eh snbseqn'en_t'_=tojthei date of' transfer', it could not any l§;i'{_j;11";3iiutt;()ri{y in the respondents in_havingV_ standing in the name of the ti'\""i'iil6 decisions sought to be with reference to particular provisions -General Sales Tax Act, I959. in Cctzn=eri A:i1;:.a.(z..supra;A_reiii.a'race is sought to be placed on Section holding that wwlteai an assessee had alienated the property _ S"{1l)_SitL€.§tlL'v'.l_"1iI" to the provistoraal assessment notice, such sale would be coveretlili.yiSecti()tt 24 of the. Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. lii9..5.9. it is seen from the tenor of Section 24 which is i'e5<'t:*;ieted at P'arag;1'aph ll) of the said decision, that it is with " 'pa.rtic.ular reference to the said Section that the transfer was held to 5 life be void. insofar as Hamsa's case is concerned, the Kerala High Court agaiii was pizieiiig reliance on Sections 26--A, 26--B__._of t.he Kerala General Licence Act. in hoiding that the ti'a11isfer"._itv-hii'c,h was in question in that case was hit by the said p1'()v~i.sii()ns._itiri ' absence of any corresponding provhfionsi'under ~:the_"{(_a1fh2itak£t. Sales Tax Act, 1957, with which we areAconeerne-gig.it"cL111not'be'v said that there is any Iegai basis the could have proceeded against in the name of the minor tietitioners;-i. i V In this is :.-tiiowed.

Aimextirie-3 i-s'qt.1ashed,A , i

6. Iris.tj)ﬁnf as writ petition in WP E8962/2009 V is con_c{ei"iied. t1te"pe_titi()iie'1' is the thither of the minor petitioners in the }§et-_iti'on in WP }8811/2009 and apart from questioning t11e--eih:«1rgei sioftighetiitt) be created on the properties standing in the Uname oﬁhiis. minor children. he atiso seeks to question the charge '~e'ie;1te'ti«.()ii his other property. on the 'footing that though the other 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court