Amarappa Arli Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Gangavathi and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 458: [dr. k. bhakthavatsala, j] offences under sections 341 and 352 i.p.c., limitation for taking cognisance incident taking place on 2.8.2005 cognizance taken on 4.6.2007 punishment being imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year held, as per section 458 of cr.p.c., the court shall not take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under section 458 cr.p.c., - proceedings were quashed. - in my view, it has no part to play in a case like this and, therefore, cannot be attracted.orderjagannatha shetty, j.1. amarappa arli - the petitioner - was assessed to tax and also levied penalty under the provisions of the karnataka sales tax act. he paid the tax and made an application to the government under section 13(2a) for waiving the penalty. he has stated therein that he had financial difficulties and therefore unable to pay the penalty. it is said that the state government issued an order of stay at the beginning, but later, without notice to him vacated the stay order and also dismissed the application. 2. aggrieved by the action taken, the petitioner has moved this court with an application under article 226. 2. it was urged for the petitioner that the government ought to have afforded an opportunity of being heard before dismissing his application and, in any event, the government could not have vacated the stay order without notice to the petitioner. 3. let me now examine the contentions. section 13(2a) provides : 'notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the state government may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, remit the whole or any part of the penalty payable in respect of any period by any person or class of persons.' 3. sub-section confers powers on the state government to remit the whole or any part of the penalty. the defaulting person derives no right thereunder. the petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any right of hearing in his application. 4. the contention that the government ought to have issued notice to the petitioner before vacating the stay order is based on rules of natural justice. in my view, it has no part to play in a case like this and, therefore, cannot be attracted. 5. it was lastly contended that the government order rejecting the petitioner's application was not a speaking order and therefore should be quashed. the said order reads : 'government of karnataka no. fd162csl74. karnataka govt. secretariat, vidhana soudha, bangalore, dated 26th december, 1974. from the secretary to the government of karnataka, finance department. to sri amarappa arli, ex-oil mill owner, gangavathi. sir, sub : waiver of penalty and grant of stay against recovery proceedings. ref : your petition dated 17-5-1974 addressed to finance minister, bangalore. i am directed to state that it is regretted that your request for waiver of penalty cannot be conceded. the commissioner of commercial taxes is being requested to vacate the stay and intimate action for recovery of the dues. yours faithfully, sd/- (t. m. vasudevan) under secretary to government, finance department.' 6. it is true that the government have not given any reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner for waiving penalty. but, i see no obligation on the government to give any such reason. section 13(2a) does not contemplate an order adjudicating the civil rights of any party and, therefore, the order to be made thereunder need not be a speaking order. 7. the petition is therefore rejected. 8. petition rejected.

Judgment:
ORDER

Jagannatha Shetty, J.

1. Amarappa Arli - the petitioner - was assessed to tax and also levied penalty under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. He paid the tax and made an application to the Government under section 13(2A) for waiving the penalty. He has stated therein that he had financial difficulties and therefore unable to pay the penalty. It is said that the State Government issued an order of stay at the beginning, but later, without notice to him vacated the stay order and also dismissed the application.

2. Aggrieved by the action taken, the petitioner has moved this court with an application under article 226.

2. It was urged for the petitioner that the Government ought to have afforded an opportunity of being heard before dismissing his application and, in any event, the Government could not have vacated the stay order without notice to the petitioner.

3. Let me now examine the contentions. Section 13(2A) provides : 'Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the State Government may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, remit the whole or any part of the penalty payable in respect of any period by any person or class of persons.'

3. Sub-section confers powers on the State Government to remit the whole or any part of the penalty. The defaulting person derives no right thereunder. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any right of hearing in his application.

4. The contention that the Government ought to have issued notice to the petitioner before vacating the stay order is based on rules of natural justice. In my view, it has no part to play in a case like this and, therefore, cannot be attracted.

5. It was lastly contended that the Government order rejecting the petitioner's application was not a speaking order and therefore should be quashed. The said order reads :

'Government of Karnataka No. FD162CSL74. Karnataka Govt. Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore, Dated 26th December, 1974. From

The Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Finance Department.

To

Sri Amarappa Arli, Ex-Oil Mill Owner, Gangavathi.

Sir,

Sub : Waiver of penalty and grant of stay against recovery proceedings.

Ref : Your petition dated 17-5-1974 addressed to Finance Minister, Bangalore.

I am directed to state that it is regretted that your request for waiver of penalty cannot be conceded. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is being requested to vacate the stay and intimate action for recovery of the dues.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/- (T. M. Vasudevan) Under

Secretary to Government, Finance Department.'

6. It is true that the Government have not given any reason for rejecting the request of the petitioner for waiving penalty. But, I see no obligation on the Government to give any such reason. Section 13(2A) does not contemplate an order adjudicating the civil rights of any party and, therefore, the order to be made thereunder need not be a speaking order.

7. The petition is therefore rejected.

8. Petition rejected.