1975 (3) TMI 118 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of recovering penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act post-validation Act 5 of 1972.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a former partner of a dissolved firm, challenged the authority's decision to recover penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act post the validation Act 5 of 1972. The validating provision aimed to validate assessments made after firms were dissolved. The petitioner did not dispute the tax liability but contested the penalty recovery.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the validating provision did not encompass penalties, citing a previous Division Bench ruling in State of Mysore v. Babulal Dungarchand and Co. The court in that case held that penalties not explicitly validated could not be recovered post-validation. The validating provision of the Karnataka Act 5 of 1972 did not specifically mention penalties, supporting the petitioner's contention.

The Government Pleader, however, relied on a different Division Bench decision in Sterling Construction and Trading Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer. The Government Pleader argued that the penalty under section 13(2) was distinct from other penalties. Nonetheless, the court found the Babulal's case decision binding, which addressed the recoverability of penalties under section 13(2). Consequently, the court upheld the petitioner's argument.

The court allowed the writ petition, directing the authorities to refrain from recovering the penalty under section 13(2) of the Act for the assessment year 1963-64. The judgment favored the petitioner, emphasizing that penalties not explicitly validated could not be recovered post the validation Act.