Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 247 (KAR)

Madhu Machine Tools v. State of Karnataka

2011-03-01

H.G.RAMESH

body2011
JUDGMENT Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.— Petitioner has sought for to quash the endorsement dated 12th July, 2010, issued by Respondent No. 4 vide Annexure-K and also to direct Respondent. No. 4 to pass orders on Kara Samadhana Scheme application filed by the Petitioner and, for such other relief. 2. Petitioner is said to be a proprietorship concern involved in manufacture of precision tools, room components and automobile products. Petitioner's firm was also registered under the provisions of Karnataka Sales Tax Act of 1957 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956. Subsequently, Petitioner's unit was declared as a sick unit by the Commissioner of Industries and Commerce. 3. As per the Government Notification, Petitioner made a representation for extension of benefit of concession under the considered under the said scheme. As per the said scheme the arrears of sales tax is payable in six half-yearly installments. Accordingly, the scheme was implemented and order has been passed fixing the installments. 4. According to the Petitioner, though he has paid the entire tax amount of Rs. 1,550,754, it was only adjusted towards interest and penalty and once again he has been directed to pay the balance tax amount of Rs. 9,83,308 by the 4th Respondent vide Annexure-K. Hence, he is before this Court. 5. Heard. 6. It is stated, for the period 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, the Petitioner has not availed the scheme against which, appeals are pending before the Appellate Authority. The grievance of the Petitioner is, although his case has been consider under the Karasamadana scheme, without taking into consideration the Government order, interest has been levied and the Respondent-authority has demanded to pay another sum of Rs. 9,83,308 as arrears under the said Scheme. 7. Learned Government Pleader has submitted that, subsequently, there is a modification of the order by the Government as per Annexure-B which provides for sanction of relief and concessions for rehabilitation of sick industries. Accordingly, he submitted that the case of the Petitioner could be reconsidered pursuant to the modification of the Scheme in the meeting held on 13th July, 2007 by the Department of Industries and Commerce. 8. In view of the submission made, it is for the Fourth respondent Deputy Commissioner for Commercial Taxes (Recovery) to reconsider the case of the Petitioner based on the Government order as per Annexure-B. Accordingly, petitions are allowed. 8. In view of the submission made, it is for the Fourth respondent Deputy Commissioner for Commercial Taxes (Recovery) to reconsider the case of the Petitioner based on the Government order as per Annexure-B. Accordingly, petitions are allowed. Impugned order passed by the Fourth Respondent at Annexure-K is quashed, with a direction to the Petitioner to approach the Fourth Respondent-authority, who would consider the case of the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law based on the concession shown by the Government as per Annex are "B".