Judgment:
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs J.
1. This petition was filed on 17th July, 1989, questioning the legality and correctness of the notice issued as at annexure A by which the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer, Chintamani Circle, Kolar District, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his turnover for the year ending 31st March, 1988, should not be revised, and assessment concluded as per assessment order dated 24th July, 1988, as at annexure A.
2. A rectified notice dated 22nd May, 1989, was issued under section 25A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), on the ground that his turnover was accepted at Rs. 2,36,626.90 and while calculating as per books of accounts Rs. 4,07,276.90 was found to be the correct turnover. In response to the said notice the petitioner addressed a letter to the Commercial Tax Officer concerned seeking further time to submit his explanation. He obtained two such adjournments and thereafter approached this Court to quash the said notice at annexure B, inter alia, on the ground that the turnover under section 6B of the karnataka Sales Tax Act cannot be included in the total turnover and as such the proposed turnover was not liable to tax under section 5 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.
3. In that view of the matter the petitioner contended that the Commercial Tax Officer in issuing the notice has acted without jurisdiction, applying the law erroneously.
4. The mistake if any committed by the Commercial Tax Officer does not touch upon his jurisdiction to verify the assessment concluded for the relevant year, inter alia, on the grounds that the books of accounts disclosed the turnover of Rs. 4,07,276.90, part of which was attributable to purchase turnover of pongam seeds. It was open to the petitioner to point out that difference to the respondent, i.e., the Commercial Tax Officer and ask him not to interfere with the assessment already concluded. Instead of that, he cannot move this Court under article 226 of the Constitution questioning jurisdiction to issue notice under section 25A of the Act.
5. In any event, when the matter was heard initially on 23rd October, 1989, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to take notice for respondent and submit to the Court. The matter then next appeared on 2nd January, 1990. In the meanwhile in view of non-participation of the petitioner after obtaining two adjournments before the Commercial Tax Officer rectification was concluded under section 25A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act and appropriate order was passed on 7th September, 1988 (which appears to be a mistake as the show cause notice issued in only on 22nd May, 1989. Therefore, the year should be read as 1989 and not 1988).
6. In other words, even before the learned Advocate was directed to take notice on 23rd October, 1989, the order has been passed. That has not been challenged. Therefore, on 2nd January, 1990, this Court directed that the petition must be suitably amended. The matter has come up for preliminary hearing with an application for amendment. That amendment may be deemed to have been permitted. Then the question remains whether the order under section 25A, is without jurisdiction or merely an order made under misapplication of law. Therefore, if it is a mistake in law as pointed out by the petitioner himself, then there is not want of jurisdiction and as such without recourse to the remedy provided under the Act this Court cannot be approached under article 226 of the Constitution.
7. In that view of the matter, the petitioner's remedy lies only in approaching the appellate forums constituted for such reliefs. In that view of the matter, this petition is dismissed.
8. Writ petition dismissed.