TMI Blog1997 (6) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued under section 8-A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, finished goods manufactured by a new industrial unit are entitled to certain sales tax exemptions depending inter alia upon the extent of investment made by it in fixed assets . For the assessment year ending March, 1994 the assessing authority issued proposition notices, in which it, inter alia, questioned the petitioner s claim for exemption made on the basis of investments in fixed assets. Objections filed by the petitioner to these notices did not find favour with the assessing authority who has by its order dated April 21, 1997 assessed the petitioner to payment of sales tax in the process partially rejecting the petitioner s claim for exemption. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the validity of assessment orders as also the demand notice issued on the basis thereof. 3.. Shri Sarangan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argued that the order passed by the assessing authority bringing to tax even that part of the turnover of the petitioner which ought to have been granted exemption under the notifications issued by the State Government was illegal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the certificate procured by the assessee this Court found that the same was not in accordance with the requirements stipulated in the exemption notification and was rightly rejected by the assessing authority. The following passage from the decision speaks for itself: In the present case, the certificate issued by the Joint Director of Industries and Commerce does not specify whether the investment is made by the petitioners industry on or after July 12, 1993 and also does not specify about the creation of additional capacity by the assessee-company on account of investment programme. In my view, certificate so issued by the Joint Director of Industries and Commerce Department is not in accordance with the requirement under the exemption notification. In my view, since the certificate so produced does not give vital information that is required, the Sales Tax Officer has rightly rejected the same while framing the provisional assessments for the months of April, May, June and July, 1996. A dealer claiming exemption must mandatorily comply with all the conditions prescribed. 5.. In the instant case the assessing authority was of the view that the exemption certificate issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the constitutionality of the provision under which the orders are passed is itself under challenge, a writ court would entertain a petition without the petitioner exhausting the alternate remedy. So also the court would not insist upon resort to the appellate remedy where the order under challenge is totally without jurisdiction. In all other situations particularly where public revenues are involved or when rights or liabilities are created and enforced under the statutes made on the subject, resort to the machinery provided by such statutes is the only and indeed the right option for the party aggrieved to exercise. Reference in this regard may be gainfully made to Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 315 (SC); AIR 1983 SC 603, where the court has observed thus: Under the scheme of the Act, there is a hierarchy of authorities before which the petitioners can get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complained of. The petitioners have the right to prefer an appeal before the prescribed authority under sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Act. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, they can prefer a further appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmining whether an order passed by an authority or Tribunal is within its jurisdiction is to see whether the statute under which the authority purports to have acted entrusts the power to pass such an order. If the answer be in the affirmative then the very fact that the order actually passed suffers from errors which may render it bad is no reason to hold the order to be without jurisdiction. Nor can the jurisdiction to pass an order imply jurisdiction to pass only a correct order. An order would remain within the jurisdiction of the authority passing the same, if it is passed in exercise of a power, which the statute confers upon the authority no matter while exercising that power the authority commits errors which may render the order unsustainable on merits. It follows that every error of law much less every conceivable error, which an authority may commit would not affect the jurisdiction of the authority. Ample support is available for the view that I have taken from the decision of the Supreme Court in Titaghur Paper Mills case [1983] 53 STC 315; AIR 1983 SC 603 where the court was considering whether the assessment order passed by the assessing authority under the Orissa Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
