Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Abdul Shakur Umar Sahigara & Co. vs Commercial Tax Officer, Additional ... on 31 October, 1967
3. The facts are not in dispute. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has merely asserted that the Commissioner had no authority under the law to order repayment of tax in instalments and, therefore, the 1st respondent was not bound by it. This submission is stated only to be rejected. There are two reasons to reject the same. First, it must be stated that a similar question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Shakur Umar Sahigara & Co. v. Commercial Tax officer, Additional Circle, Mangalore ([1968] 21 S.T.C. 77; (1968) 1 Mys. L.J. 449.). Their Lordships in that decision held that under section 13 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act the dealer became a defaulter only when he neglected to make payment of tax when it became due and not otherwise. They also held having regard to section 3-A of the Act, that a direction by the Government to pay tax in instalments would absolve the assessee from being penalised under section 13(2) of the Act unless he made default in the payment of instalments. I do not see any reason why the ratio of that decision should not be applied to the facts of this case.
1