The State Of Karnataka vs Siddartha Resorts And
2021 Latest Caselaw 5405 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                         AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

        LUXURY TAX REVISION PETITION NO.1/2018

BETWEEN :

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
                                     ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI JEEVAN J.NEERALGI, AGA)

AND :

SIDDARTHA RESORTS AND
FOODS PVT. LTD.,
NAZARBAD,
MYSORE-570 010.
                                    ...RESPONDENT

     THIS LTRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11(A) OF THE
KARNATAKA LUXURY TAX ACT, 1979, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:28.08.2013 PASSED BY THE
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN S.T.A NOS.2446
AND 2447/2011, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.,
                         -2-


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                       ORDER

This Luxury Tax Revision Petition is filed by the

State under Section 11(A) of the Karnataka Luxury Tax

Act, 1979, challenging the order passed by the

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Benglauru ("Tribunal" for

short) dated 28.08.2013 in STA Nos.2446 and 2447 of

2011, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-

assessee has been allowed setting aside the taxes,

penalty and interest levied in respect of the Ayurvedic

treatments rendered at Bidadi Eagleton Golf Resorts by

the respondent for the assessment years 2006-07 and

2007-08.

2. This appeal is filed by the Revenue with an

inordinate delay of 893 days. The explanation offered by

the appellant/Revenue in paragraph No.3 indicates that

subsequent to passing of the order dated 28.08.2013 by

the Tribunal, the file was received in the office of the

Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal Affairs)

on 30.09.2013. After receiving the same, on the same

day, the file was put up before the Additional

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal Affairs). The

file was further forwarded from the Additional

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal Affairs) to the

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka on

08.10.2014. Thereafter, the file was moved from the

Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to the concerned

officers, which resulted in the delay of 893 days in filing

the revision petition. The movement of the file itself is

the cause shown in the affidavit filed for condoning the

inordinate delay of 893 days in filing the revision

petition which shows lack of bonafides and negligence

on the part of the petitioner.

3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Esha

Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of

Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others reported

in (2013) 12 SCC 649 has held as under:

" 21.8.(viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

21.9.(ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

22.4.(d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non- serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters."

4. In the light of the said judgment, it is clear

that the inordinate delay caused in filing the revision

petition is not satisfactorily explained. In the absence of

sufficient cause shown, no case is made out to condone

the inordinate delay. More over, on the merits of the

case also, there is no good ground to interfere with the

order impugned.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, I.A.No.1/2018

stands dismissed. Consequently, Luxury Tax Revision

Petition also stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

PB