- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8125-DB STRP No. 12 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.12 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(APPEALS - 1), BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU –560 027 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (VIGILANCE-23), SALES TAX CHECK POST, BRCP (IN AND OUT) N.H.07, BAGEPALLI, CHIKKABALLPUR – 561 2017. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, AGA) AND: M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LIMITED NO 104, FIRST FLOOR, RAHEJA CHEMBERS, NO 12. MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REP BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8125-DB STRP No. 12 of 2022 THIS STRP HAS FILED UNDER SECTION 65(1) OF KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.01.2021 PASSED IN STA 377/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE ORDER DATED 28.07.2018 PASSED IN VAT. AP. NO.46/2017- 18 PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 UNDER SEC. 53(12) OF THE KVAT ACT, 2003 BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (SALES TAX CHECK POST), BRCP ( IN AND OUT) BAGEPALLI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) This revision petition by the State filed under Section 65(1) of Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003, seeks to call in question State Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 25.01.2021 whereby Assessee’s STA No.377/2018 having been favoured, relief has been accorded to him. The operative portion of the order reads as under: “ORDER 1. The Appeal in STA No.377/2018 is allowed. 2. The orders of the AA and FAA are set aside. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8125-DB STRP No. 12 of 2022 3. The Registrar of the Tribunal is directed to comply with Regulation 53(b) of Chapter-IX of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1979 by communicating this order to the persons mentioned therein. 4. The office is directed to send back the records to lower authorities immediately.” 2. The petitioner has framed the following Questions of Law for consideration: 1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Petitioner’s case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the respondent’s appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Checkpost Officer as affirmed by the First Appellate Authority? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Petitioner’s case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Act of the respondent in upholding the e-sugam on the EFS (Electronic Filing System) of the Department website subsequent to inspection of the goods vehicle, would amount to compliance of Section 53(2-A) of the Act and as such penalty could not have levied under Section 53(12) of the Act?” 3. Learned AGA appearing for the Revenue submits that the Tribunal ought not to have granted relief to the Assessee, inasmuch as, the subject Notification - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8125-DB STRP No. 12 of 2022 dated 24.05.2010 was done away with by issuing subsequent Notifications dated 19.01.2011, followed by ultimately the one dated 05.03.2014. Learned AGA notifies to the Court a decision of this court in POWER MAX v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2011 SCC OnLine Kar 460 wherein it is held that imposition of penalty is a matter of mandate and therefore, the Authorities do not have any discretion to disobey the same. 4. The Assessee has remained unrepresented despite service of notice and that would not deter the Court from deciding the cause brought before it. 5. Having heard the learned AGA and having perused the Petition Papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the subject Notification based on which the impugned order has been structured, was no longer existing because of issuance of subsequent Notifications that held the field. Thus, there is an error apparent on the face of the record that would give rise to the questions of law framed in the Petition - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8125-DB STRP No. 12 of 2022 need to be answered in favour of Revenue and against the Assessee. In the above circumstances, this Petition succeeds and impugned order of the Tribunal is set at naught. As a consequence, the order impugned before the Tribunal stands revived. Costs made easy. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33