TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner as had been done hitherto. We are also surprised about the manner in which the Additional Commissioner has chosen to exercise his revisional powers to set aside the order of the appellate authority which was undoubtedly a correct order for the reason of the original authority not having jurisdiction to pass the best judgment assessment order. - 61,62,63 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 27-10-2009 - SHYLENDRA KUMAR D.V. AND NARAYANA SWAMY L. , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR J. These three appeals under section 66(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act , for short) are by a dealer/partnership firm, which had not bothered to get itself registered under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner. In the absence of authorization of the competent authority, the impugned order would be an improper order. The appellate authority nevertheless remanded the order to the very authority, though it had opined that he was not the duly authorized officer to pass the best judgment assessment order under sub-section (7) of section 38 of the Act. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, exercising revisional power under section 64 of the Act, being of the opinion that the order passed by the first appellate authority is not only erroneous, but also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, interfered with the matter, set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner and restored the order passed by the original a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the dealer. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there are a few more points to urge on the merits but this solitary ground will be sufficient to get over the impugned order for the present and in this view of the submission, the learned Additional Government Advocate was called upon to place before the court the authorization, if any, in favour of the Deputy Commissioner, which had enabled him to pass the order. In response and on receiving instructions from the Department, the learned Government Advocate has placed before the court a copy of the order dated December 19, 2007 indicating that Sri A.B. Samshuddin, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Audit-35, DVO-3, Bangalore, has been assigned the case of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax liability. In the instant case, we find that the so-called original authorization which is placed before the court, notwithstanding the claim to this effect is only an order internal notes of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn.) DVO-3, Bangalore, with the intimation of assignment for audit in respect of the appellant. Though this note is only quoting the order of the Commissioner dated December 6, 2007 for the purpose of assigning the respondent the power and function to audit the accounts of the appellant-dealer for the period April 1, 2005 onwards the original enabling order of the Commissioner is conspicuously absent. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, having exercised his power, authorized the Deputy Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omes up with a most convenient answer that the records have been lost. What we find from the records produced now is only a copy of the original records that too, not from the office where the order is passed, but is only the file at the office of the Additional Commissioner, who is the revisional authority and whose order is in challenge in this appeal. A perusal of the records only betrays an incorrect, inadequate understanding of the provisions of the Act by the officers of the Commercial Tax Department and the most unprofessional, negligent careless manner of performing their duties. An authorization in favour of an officer by the Commissioner in terms of section 38(7) of the Act for the purpose of passing the best judgment assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Department take care to follow the statutory provisions at least now and not to act in a negligent and careless manner as had been done hitherto. We are also surprised about the manner in which the Additional Commissioner has chosen to exercise his revisional powers to set aside the order of the appellate authority which was undoubtedly a correct order for the reason of the original authority not having jurisdiction to pass the best judgment assessment order. It should be realized by the statutory authorities that they are acting as statutory functionaries and as quasi-judicial authorities and it is not as though, an order is passed, as though a dealer is an adversary in a litigation with the Revenue and that the Commercial Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
