TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner's appeal and affirming the order dated 29th November, 1978, of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) which, in turn, dismissed the assessee's appeal and affirmed the order of assessment dated 24th July, 1978, made by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, II S. C., Hubli, for the assessment period 14th November, 1974, to 3rd November, 1975. 3. Both the Assistant Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the two successive appellate authorities under the Act, have declined to go into the merits of the appeal having persuaded themselves to the view that under sub-section (3) of section 20 of the Act, the assessee's first appeal, not having been accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of tax not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the tax not disputed in appeal. The appeal was accordingly rejected in limine. In second appeal, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has affirmed this order. 5.. Though certain questions of law said to arise from the order of the Tribunal have been formulated in this petition, we think these formulations are inapposite and do not reflect the real contention which Sri B. V. Katageri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, sought to put across. The first contention urged by Sri Katageri before us is that no concept of a "tax not disputed in the appeal" can at all arise in the undisputed facts of this case, inasmuch as the total turnover returned by the petitioner was admittedly Rs. 7,166.14 and that under section 5(5) of the Act a dealer w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be said that the successive appellate authorities either failed to decide the question or decided the question erroneously, as according to her, the question in that form had not been urged before the authorities at all. We are afraid, the learned Government Pleader is attempting to make a fortress out of a mere technicality. On a plain reading of the memorandum of first appeal, it is clear that the entire tax -determined under the assessment order had in fact been disputed and it was quite erroneous to say that there was any undisputed portion of the tax. On the question whether any admitted liability to tax arose before the assessing authority pursuant to the return filed by the petitioner, it appears to us that the concept of such a l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
