TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner and the non-implementation of the order of the Joint Commissioner results in some hardship or grievance to an assessee or a dealer, it is the Commissioner who has to own up the responsibility apart from the concerned Joint Commissioner by explaining himself for such inaction, as is warranted in law and depending upon the service conditions of the officer. Be that as it may, we find absolutely nothing wrong in the order passed by the learned single judge and more so in imposing cost on the Department and in turn making it recoverable from the salary of the first respondent. Appeal dismissed. - Writ Appeal No. 5195 of 2009 (T-RES) along with Misc. W. Nos. 13135 to 13138 of 2009 in W. A. No. 5195 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2010 - SHYLENDRA KUMAR D.V. AND ANANDA N. , JJ. The judgment of the court was delivered by D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR J. Yet another appeal purporting to be under section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act and claiming to be by it person who was a non-party to the order questioned in this appeal and on the premise that the impugned order passed by the learned single judge of this court on July 9, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 19066 of 2009(1) n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had taken necessary bona fide action and very timely action, that in fact the only grievance of the writ petitioner being not getting a refund amount in terms of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Appeals and neither allowing refund nor the Commissioner as the head of the Department taking up any further action against the order and in such circumstances, when the writ petitioner had caused a legal notice to be issued claiming for refund, the present appellant who was functioning as the Commissioner had immediately taken action on the very day of the receipt of the legal notice by bringing it to the notice of the concerned Joint Commissioner who was in-charge of enforcement and in such circumstances, no remiss or negligence or lack of performance of duty could have been attributed to the appellant and at any rate no cost should have been levied on the respondents (officers of the Commercial Department) in the writ petition, and further the amount could not have been made recoverable personally from the salary of the appellant under the impugned order and therefore, the appeal needs examination and to be allowed, etc. In support of his submission, Sri E.S. Indiresh woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relates only to levy of cost. The other circumstance we notice is that the very order had already been appealed against by all the three respondents, including the name of the present appellant, namely, Sri B.A. Harisha Gowda, s/o. late B.A. Gowda, the Commissioner of the Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, which position the appellant held at the relevant point of time, which resulted in the judgment dated November 6, 2009, by this court dismissing the appeal. One of us was a member of the Bench dismissing the appeal. In view of the passionate submissions made by Sri E.S. Indiresh and the grievance sought to be explained by the appellant, claiming that the appellant did not have any opportunity at all to present his version, etc., we have also looked into the merits of the order. While, the facts are not in dispute, the operative portion of the order passed by the learned single judge(1) in paras 6 and 7 reads as under: 6. In the circumstances, although a writ in the nature sought for by the petitioner is not permissible since under the Act the authorities are required to take action in accordance with law, nevertheless the petitioner is entitled to costs of this petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Department though is an officer subordinate to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Department while passing an order as an Appellate Commissioner exercise quasi-judicial functions and as such the responsibility for ensuring implementation of that order on the administrative side lies only on the Commissioner and the non-implementation of the order of the Joint Commissioner results in some hardship or grievance to an assessee or a dealer, it is the Commissioner who has to own up the responsibility apart from the concerned Joint Commissioner by explaining himself for such inaction, as is warranted in law and depending upon the service conditions of the officer. Be that as it may, we find absolutely nothing wrong in the order passed by the learned single judge and more so in imposing cost on the Department and in turn making it recoverable from the salary of the first respondent. We find the appeal totally meritless and even frivolous and though we are inclined to mulct the appellant with further cost, as we have to only dismiss this appeal, we refrain from doing so only because of the irrelevant submissions made at the Bar by the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant on the spot, it is not known as to what were the office objections, whether it is one related to maintainability of the present appeal or otherwise, due to the fact that an earlier appeal had already been disposed of against the very order or if the objection was in the context of any other deficiencies. Be that as it may. It is important that the Registrar (judicial) bestows his attention on this aspect and ensures that the registry becomes aware and a commensurate note is always put up in the office note portion of the ordersheet if the very order appealed against in the subsequent appeal was subject-matter of an earlier appeal. We also notice that there is no proper pagination of the order sheet in this appeal. The order sheets are all loose sheets, joined as and when and all order sheets do not even bear the initial or signature of any responsible officer in the registry. This again gives scope for manipulation of the order sheet and that will be a sad day for the High Court if the High Court records are amenable to the manipulation or machinations from the interested parties. Sufficient measures should be taken to ensure that such possibilities are preven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
