Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr. - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

16. That provision read thus :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 27
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 28
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 29
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 30
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

28. Writ petitions dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372523',
			'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
			'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">16. That provision read thus : </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372523',
		(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors Vs State of Karnataka and anr - Citation 372523 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372523',
		'acts' => 'Karnataka Sales Tax Act - Sections 12-B, 12-B(1), 12-B(3), 13 and 13(2); Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 13; Rajasthan Sales Tax Act - Sections 7, 7(2), 16 and 16(1); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax - Sections 24 and 24(3)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petition Nos. 3610 to 3612 of 1987',
		'appellant' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Varalakshmi Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'casenote' => 'Sales Tax - penalty - Sections 12-B, 12-B (1), 13 (1) and 13 (2) of Karnataka Sales Tax Act - legality of levy of penalty under Section 13 (2) - penalty imposed at rates specified in Section 13 (2) on advance tax which was not paid by petitioners on basis of returns - allegedly 'any other amount due' inserted in Section 13 (1) does not refer to tax payable under Section 12-B (1) - petitioner further alleged that provisions of Section 13 (2) not attracted to case of default payment of advance tax under Section 12-B (1) - amount payable under Section 12-B (1) recoverable by invoking all provisions of Section 13 along with penalty leviable under Section 13 (2) - any default in making deposits of tax payable on returns attracts penalty not only under Section 12-B but also under Section 13 (2). - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890. Sections 498-A & 306 r/w  Section 34 :[V.Jagannathan,J]  Suicide by married woman by setting herself ablaze  Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for abetment of Conviction based on dying declaration recorded in cyclostyled form by executive Magistrate without doctors certificate that declarant was in fit condition to make declaration - Medical and other evidence that deceased had suffered 95% of burns and was not able to respond to questions put to her  Held, Such dying declaration has no evidentiary value to support conviction. On other hand, evidence on record suggests that deceased wanted to go back to her parents house as she was dejected in life, because her mother-in-law and her husbands brother were blind by birth requiring her help all time. It is therefore reasonable to infer that she committed suicide for reasons other than alleged cruel treatment given to her by  accused. Accused are entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt.   -  Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. 14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). 22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). 26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'B.V. Katageri, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'Dattu, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1987-11-17',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. </p><p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. </p><p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. </p><p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. </p><p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. </p><p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. </p><p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. </p><p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. </p><p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. </p><p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). </p><p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). </p><p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). </p><p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. </p><p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. </p><p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. </p><p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. </p><p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. </p><p>16. That provision read thus : </p><p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' </p><p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. </p><p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. </p><p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. </p><p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. </p><p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). </p><p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. </p><p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. </p><p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). </p><p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. </p><p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. </p><p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1988]69STC98(Kar)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372523',
	(int) 1 => 'varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372523/varalakshmi-enterprises-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>S.R. Rajasekhara Murthy, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The writ petitions are heard on merits, namely, as to the legality of the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (KST Act), on the petitioners, as per annexures A, B and C. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2.The petitioner's contention is that the provisions of section 13(2) of the KST Act are not attracted to a case of default of payment of advance tax under section 12-B(1) of the KST Act, on the facts and contentions urged in the writ petitions. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Sri Katageri has taken me through the scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions. It is therefore necessary to advert to the scheme of the Act with reference to the payment of advance tax in Chapter V and the relevant section 12-B(3) and 13, relating to the levy of penalty. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Section 12-B relates to the payment of advance tax by a dealer on the basis of the taxable turnover as disclosed in its monthly statements and admitted to be due. ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Sri Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, relies upon several decisions of this Court and other High Courts, in support of his contention that no penalty under section 13(2) of the Act can be levied for default of payment of advance tax or short payment. ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. The first decision is the case of B. V. Aswathiah & Brothers v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bangalore reported in [1963] 14 STC 467 (Mys). This Court, while dealing with the assessments for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60 and provisions of section 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957, and the Rules framed thereunder, held that no penalty could be levied on a dealer till a final assessment was made under the Act and further that no penalty was liable unless the assessee became a defaulter after service of notice of demand in form 6 after assessment. ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Section 13, as it stood at the relevant point of time, was different from the corresponding provisions under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act applicable to the relevant years in question. This decision, therefore, is not of any assistance to the petitioners. ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The second decision is State of Rajasthan v. Ghasilal reported in : [1965]2SCR805 . That was a case which arose under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Their Lordships while dealing with sections 3 and 5 which created liability to pay the tax, held that unless the tax payable is ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2), no tax can be said to be due within the meaning of section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Section 16(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Act provided for imposition of penalty under the scheme of the Rajasthan Act and tax became due only after it was assessed either under section 10 or under section 7(2) of the Act. Section 7 imposed an obligation on the part of the dealer to make payment along with the return, of the admitted tax. This return was to be filed after the close of the accounting year. Section 10 dealt with assessments to be made as provided under the Act. Provisions of section 16 were attracted both in the case of failure to make the payment as required under section 7 and on assessment made under section 10. Therefore, their Lordships held on the basis of the scheme of the Act, that no penalty would be liable unless the tax payable was ascertained by the assessing authority under section 10 or by the assessee under section 7(2) of the Act. This is also not a case which corresponds to the provisions of section 12-B(1) and section 13 of the KST Act as are found relevant for the years in question. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The third decision is Jiwanmal Sons Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur [1971] 28 STC 247 (MP). ',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. The fourth decision is Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [1980] 46 STC 489 (MP). ',
	(int) 11 => '<p>the fifth case is Joy Varghese v. State of Kerala [1986] 62 STC 227 (Ker). ',
	(int) 12 => '<p>11. In none of these cases, the provisions of the particular State Act, that were being considered are in pari materia with section 12-B(3) or 13(2) of the Karnataka Act. ',
	(int) 13 => '<p>12. The only other decision which requires a close reading, is of the Madras High Court in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Central Assessment Circle I, Coimbatore [1985] 59 STC 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on this decision in support of his contention. ',
	(int) 14 => '<p>13. Their Lordships were dealing with the provisions of section 24 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act which provides for recovery of tax. ',
	(int) 15 => '<p>14. Section 24(3) of the Act provides for levy of penalty for failure to pay the tax within the specified time mentioned in the notice of assessment. ',
	(int) 16 => '<p>15. Section 24(3) with which their Lordships were dealing, was the provision before amendment. ',
	(int) 17 => '<p>16. That provision read thus : ',
	(int) 18 => '<p>'Section 24(3) If the tax assessed under this Act or any instalment thereof is not paid by any dealer or person within the time specified therefor in the notice of assessment or in the order permitting payment in instalments, the dealer or person shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to the amount due, a sum equal to a sum calculated at the rate of one rupee for every hundred rupees or part thereof of such amount for each month or part thereof after the date specified for its payment.' ',
	(int) 19 => '<p>17. The High Court held, on a construction of the provisions of section 24(3), it did not apply to a case governed by rule 18 of the Rules under which the dealer could opt for payment of tax on its monthly returns in lieu of annual returns. Under rule 18(3), the dealer was required to deposit, along with the monthly return, the tax payable on the basis of the return. On a construction of the scheme of the Act, the provisions of rule 18 and section 24(3), the High Court held that no penalty could be levied in respect of the tax required to be deposited in accordance with rule 18(3). It should be noted that the wordings of section 24(3) were altogether different and the ratio of that decision cannot therefore be of any assistance to the petitioners in these cases before me. ',
	(int) 20 => '<p>18. Therefore, let me now examine the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act which are relevant and applicable to the present cases. ',
	(int) 21 => '<p>19. Under section 12-B a dealer is required to pay, in advance, the full amount of tax payable by him along with the monthly statement of return. The said provision further provides that any failure to pay the admitted tax shall, for the purpose of section 13, be deemed to be an amount due under this Act from such dealer. ',
	(int) 22 => '<p>20. Sub-section (3) of section 12-B provides that if at the end of the year it is found that the amount of tax paid by the dealer on his monthly returns falls short of the tax payable on the basis of the returns, a penalty not exceeding 1 1/2 times the amount that falls short, is also leviable. ',
	(int) 23 => '<p>21. In the present case the petitioners' challenge is to the levy of penalty imposed by the respondent under section 13(2) of the Act. This penalty is imposed at the rates specified in sub-section (2) on the advance tax which was not paid by the petitioners on the basis of the returns. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that 'any other amount due' which is inserted in sub-section (1) of section 13 does not refer to the tax payable under section 12-B(1). ',
	(int) 24 => '<p>22. Sri Dattu has placed strong reliance on the provisions of section 12-B read with section 13 as it stands after amendment, for the purpose of sustaining the levy of penalty under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 25 => '<p>23. A notice of demand in form No. 5 is issued in a case where the dealer defaults to deposit the tax along with the monthly statements of returns filed in form No. 3. It may been seen from the said notice of demand issued in form No. 5 under rule 17(2), that the dealer is informed that he is in default of payment of the said sum due under section 12-B(1) and (2) and that the said amount would be recovered in the manner specified in section 13(3) along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2) of the Act. ',
	(int) 26 => '<p>24. Rule 17 of the Rules makes it obligatory on the part of the dealer and prescribes the time-limit within he has to deposit the tax payable on the returns submitted by him in form 3. Any default in making such deposit attracts penalty not only under sub-section (3) of section 12-B of the Act but also under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. ',
	(int) 27 => '<p>25. That the amount payable under section 12-B(1), the default in payment of which occurs, is recoverable by invoking all the provisions of section 13 along with the penalty leviable under section 13(2), is also the undoubted position in law after the insertion of 'any other amount due' by Act No. 23 of 1983 in section 13(1). ',
	(int) 28 => '<p>26. The contention of the petitioners that no penalty is leviable under section 13(2) for the failure to deposit the admitted tax under section 12-B(1), is, therefore rejected. ',
	(int) 29 => '<p>27. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. ',
	(int) 30 => '<p>28. Writ petitions dismissed. <p>',
	(int) 31 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 32
$i = (int) 31
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109