Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 461 (KAR)

KUNAL STEEL CORPORATION v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2004-07-20

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2004
( 1 ) HEARD Sri. S. G. Shivaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. G. Bhavani Singh, learned Addl. SPP appearing on behalf of the respondent. ( 2 ) BY the impugned order, the Court below has issued fine levy warrant against the petitioner under Section 421 (1) (a) of Cr. P. C. for recovery of the among of tax allegedly due by him. ( 3 ) THE records disclose that the respondent herein filed an application under Section 13 (3) (b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter called as the Act for short) for recovery of Rs. 7,338/-, the alleged tax due by the petitioner to the department. The respondent based his claim merely on the notice issued to the petitioner herein under Section 12-B (2) of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that no order is passed by the department pursuant to the notice under Section 12-B (2) of the Act and consequently, these proceedings cannot be initiated for the purpose of recovery of the amount shown in the said notice, inasmuch as the said notice cannot be treated as an order. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded, inasmuch as, no order is passed in pursuance to the notice issued under Section 12-B (2) of the Act by the respondent-department. The said notice vide Annexure- B cannot be equated to the order. In the absence of any order determining the liability of the petitioner to pay the interest or penalty, the proceedings for recovery of the amount in question cannot be initiated merely on the basis of the notice. Thus, the impugned order dated 29. 6. 2004 passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside and the proceedings in C. Misc. No. 171/04 are liable to be dropped. Hence, the following order in made; the impugned order dated 29. 6. 2004 passed by the Court below in C. Misc. No. 171/04 is set aside. The proceedings in C. Misc. No. 171/04 are dropped. The respondent is at liberty to initiate recovery proceedings afresh after passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. --- *** --- .