STATE OF KARNATAKA versus SUNAGAR BROS.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 13-04-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
A 
"-· 
~-
V. 
SUNAGAR BROS. 
APRIL 13, 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.P . .JEEVAN REDDY, ,J.J.] 
B 
Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957: Ss. 20 (3) and 68-Held, undis-
pured r:a.r to be deposited before appeal is e11tertained includes addi-
tional tax under S. 6B. 
c 
The respondent-assessee challenged the best judgment assess- · 
ment for the year 1972-73. The First Appellate Authorit~· dismissed it 
in .limine on the ground that the respondent had failed to pa~· the tax 
"not disputed in appeal". 
/ 
i 
/ 
D 
A second appeal was dismissed by the Karnataka Appellate 
Tribunal. The High Court allowed the revision petition of the assessee 
on the grotfnd that the additional tax payable under S. 68 was distinct 
from the tax in S.20 (3) on the payment of which the right of appeal 
is made dependent. 
E 
In the appeal by the State to this Court, the question was whether 
• 
themandateunders.20(3) to pay the undisputed tax before the appeal 
is entertained is also applicable to additional tax payable under s.6B 
~ 
of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
F 
HELD: 1. The expression 'tax' has been defined to mean a tax 
leviable under the provisions of the Act and as· such includes the 
additional tax levied under section 6B of the Act. When Section 20 (3) 
talks of "payment of the tax and penalty not disputed in the appeal" G. 
"' 
it obviously includes the additional tax. (85-B) 
On the plain language of S. 20 (3), the only conclusion which can 
be drawn is that the undisputed 'tax' which includes additional tax 
-
has to be deposit£d before the appeal is entertained. (85-C) 
H 
'81 
82 
SUPREME COl;RT REPORTS 
119931} S.C.R. 
A 
2. The fact that the quantum of the additional tax is determined 
with reference to the sales tax, purchase tax imposts would n~t alter 
its character. The additional tax is nothing but an enhancement in the 
rate of the sales tax/purchase tax under the Act. As soon as the 
assessing authority determines the levy of sales tax/purchase tax the 
additional tax under Section 6B hecomes part of the assessment order. 
8 . Similarly if the main impost under Section 5 (I) is successfully 
challenged, the reasoning sustaining the challfnge would also-ipso 
facto-affect the validity of the additional impost under Section 6B of 
the Act. (85-D-E) 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 228 
(NT) of 1987. 
. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.1982 of the Karnataka 
High Court in S.T.R.P.No. IQ0/81. 
D 
M. Veerappa and K.H. Nobin Singh for the Appeilant. 
The judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
KULDIP SINGH,J. The question for consideration in this appeal 
is whether the mandate, under Section 20 (3) of the Karnataka Sales 
Tax Act, 1957 (the Act), to pay the undisputed tax before the appeal 
is entertained. is also applicable to the additional tax payable under 
Section 6B of the Act. In other words whether it is obligatory under the 
Act to deposit the tax and the additional tax before the appeal is 
F entertained. 
The respondent-assessee challenged the best judgment assess-
ment made against him for the year 1972-73 before the First Appellate 
Authority which was dismissed in limine on the ground that the 
G respondent failed to pay the tax "not disputed in appeal". The second 
appeal filed by the asses see before· the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal 
was also dismissed. On a revision petition under the Act the Kamataka 
High Court reversed the findings of the authorities below on the ground 
- that unpaid "not disputed" tax was the additional tax which was 
different than the tax envisaged under Section 20 (3) of the Act. The 
iI High Court allowed the revision petition of the assessee and remanded 
.r 
• 
-
t
STATE OF KARNATAKA 1•. SUNAGAR BROS. [KULDIP SINGH. J .. J 
83 
the matter to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal in A 
accordance with law. This appeal by way of spec'ial leave against the 
judgment of the High Court is by the State of Karnataka. 
Before the appellate authority it was the admitted case of the 
parties that no part of the undisputed tax levied under Section 5 (I) of B 
the Act had remained unpaid. It was only the undisputed additional 
levy under Section 6B of the· Act which had not been paid. 
Section 20 (1) of the Act confers a right of appeal. Sub-section 2 
of Section 20 refers to the period of limitation. Sub-Section 3 (A) of· 
section 20 is as under:-
C 
"No appeal against an order of assessment shall be 
entertained by th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.