M.D. Book Centre Vs. State of Karnataka

M.D. Book Centre vs State of Karnataka

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Karnataka Decided Jun 12, 2008

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/387404

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/387404
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: V. Gopala Gowda and; Ravi Malimath, JJ.
Decided On: Jun 12, 2008
Case Number: S.T.R.P. No. 30 of 2008
Subject: Sales Tax
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Sections 13(1) (ia), (ib): [N. Kumar & Jawad Rahim, JJ] Petition for Divorce by Wife Cruelty and irretrievable break down of marriage Death of marital life both emotionally and practically - total desertion for 18 years - Abandonment of his Wife and son by the respondent - Failure to perform matrimonial obligat...

Key legal issue: Sales Tax
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 6A and 12(4)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.D. Book Centre

Advocate B.P. Gandhi, Adv.

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 6A and 12(4)
Reported In: (2009)26VST448(Karn)

Excerpt

.....it would be a futile exercise to make any further attempt or reconciliation. the material on record clearly discloses it is the respondent who withdraw from the company of the petitioner without just and sufficient cause. virtually he has abandoned his wife and son and has failed to perform matrimonial obligations towards his wife and parental obligation towards his son who is now aged 20 years. in the circumstances, it can be safely held that a case for divorce is made out. in the instant case the respondent has not contributed anything towards the upbringing of the child and has not cared for his wife; the marriage is dead both emotionally and practically. unfortunately, it is the wife who is seeking divorce; she is not seeking any compensation from the husband; all that she wants is to put an end to the terrible mental agony she is undergoing for so many years. unfortunately, the trial court has dealt with this matter like a civil suit, insisting on adherence to strict rules and evidence to support the said plea and has proceeded to find out whether the conduct of the respondent was harmful and injurious to the petitioner vis--vis bodily injury. this is how it has misdirected itself in approaching the issue of cruelty. hence, the impugned judgment has to be interfered with. appeal as well as petition for divorce was allowed. - 9,40,000 on the basis of the report of the intelligence authority without examining the objection statement filed by the assessee to the show-cause notice has rendered the impugned judgment of the karnataka appellate tribunal bad in law......the case of the petitioner. therefore, the order of remand has no effect after examining the matter, keeping in view the objections filed by the assessee to the show-cause notice, the tribunal has committed an error in not noticing the relevant fact of classification of total turnover with regard to second sale of goods which comes to rs. 5,58,043 and the finding recorded by the assessing authority with regard to rs. 9,40,000 on the basis of the report of the intelligence authority without examining the objection statement filed by the assessee to the show-cause notice has rendered the impugned judgment of the karnataka appellate tribunal bad in law.4. with reference to the abovesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner sri b.p. gandhi, we have carefully examined the impugned judgment passed by the tribunal with a view to find out as to whether the impugned order warrants interference by this court. the tribunal after referring to the legal grounds urged before it has framed the following question and answered the same in favour of the assessee:whether the orders of the lower authorities are sustainable in law?5. the above question has been answered by referring to the question of facts and the rival legal contentions in the impugned judgment at paragraphs 6(a) to 6(d) and also to the legal contentions with regard to the reduction of penalty levied under section 12(4) of the karnataka sales tax act, 1957 by the first appellate authority. at paragraph 7 it has recorded its reasons and held that if the petitioner is unable to establish that the unaccounted purchases are from local registered dealers, then the assessing authority would be justified in taxing the corresponding suppressed sales as first sales at the hands of the petitioner as the burden of proof to prove the sale is second sale cast upon the petitioner under section 6a of the act needs to be complied with. in view of this, the orders of the assessing authority and the first.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

1. The petition questioning correctness of the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated December 13, 2007, in S.T.P. No. 1000 of 2005 had been filed praying to allow the revision petition and to set aside the order of the first appellate authority and the assessing authority and to re-verify the books of account and to pass orders on merits.

2. The ground of attack before the Appellate Tribunal was that the first appellate authority has erroneously passed the order ignoring the statement of objections filed on September 5, 2002 and September 16, 2002. Further, the Tribunal was required to frame the questions finally arising out of the appeal filed by the assessee, which has not been donedespite the legal grounds urged in the appeal. Therefore, the matter requires further consideration. Hence, this revision petition.

3. The ground of attack is that the Tribunal while allowing the appeal has made certain observations on merits of the case which will affect the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the order of remand has no effect After examining the matter, keeping in view the objections filed by the assessee to the show-cause notice, the Tribunal has committed an error in not noticing the relevant fact of classification of total turnover with regard to second sale of goods which comes to Rs. 5,58,043 and the finding recorded by the assessing authority with regard to Rs. 9,40,000 on the basis of the report of the intelligence authority without examining the objection statement filed by the assessee to the show-cause notice has rendered the impugned judgment of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal bad in law.

4. With reference to the abovesaid submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri B.P. Gandhi, we have carefully examined the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal with a view to find out as to whether the impugned order warrants interference by this Court. The Tribunal after referring to the legal grounds urged before it has framed the following question and answered the same in favour of the assessee:

Whether the orders of the lower authorities are sustainable in law?

5. The above question has been answered by referring to the question of facts and the rival legal contentions in the impugned judgment at paragraphs 6(a) to 6(d) and also to the legal contentions with regard to the reduction of penalty levied under Section 12(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 by the first appellate authority. At paragraph 7 it has recorded its reasons and held that if the petitioner is unable to establish that the unaccounted purchases are from local registered dealers, then the assessing authority would be justified in taxing the corresponding suppressed sales as first sales at the hands of the petitioner as the burden of proof to prove the sale is second sale cast upon the petitioner under Section 6A of the Act needs to be complied with. In view of this, the orders of the assessing authority and the first appellate authority are set aside and the appellate authority was directed to re-verify the books of account and pass appropriate orders. Further, an opportunity is given to the assessee to produce the books of account and purchase bills corresponding to those purchases which are reported as unaccounted by the intelligence authority in its report. Therefore, the appeal was allowed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the orders of the assessing-authority and the appellate authority are not based on proper appreciation and the objection statement filed by the assessee should be supported by the documentary evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the orders of the assessing authority and the first appellate authority and further directed the assessee to discharge its burden as provided under Section 6A of the Act to justify its claim made in the statement of objections. Therefore, the assessing authority is required to consider the objection statement. The objection statement of the assessee must be supported by the books of account regarding the purchase bills corresponding to those purchases which are reported in the intelligence report, with regard to the second sales and also the sales as stated in the intelligence report.

6. With the above observations, this revision petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2008 Same Parties M.D. Book Centre vs State of Karnataka Same Subject Sales Tax Same Judge V. Gopala Gowda and; Ravi Malimath, JJ. Acts & Sections Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 6A and 12(4)

Sales Tax