Appeal No 228 NT of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 841982 of the Karnataka High Court in STRPNo 10081
M Veerappa and KH Nobin Singh for the Appellant
The judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIPSINGHJ
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 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 respondent failed to pay the tax not disputed in appeal
The second appeal filed by the assessee before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed
On a revision petition under the Act the Karnataka 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 High Court allowed the revision petition of the assessee and remanded 83 the matter to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law
This appeal by way of special 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 1 of 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 No appeal against an order of assessment shall be entertained by the appellate authority unless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax and penalty not disputed in the appeal The High court on the interpretation of various provisions of the Act came to the conclusion that the additional tax under Section 613 is a levy distinct from the impost under section 5 1 of the Act
The High Court thus came to the conclusion that the nonpayment of the additional tax would not bar the entertainment of the appeal under the Act
The findings of the High Court are based on the following reasoning Though the tax under section 6B is and impost of a similar nature it is a levy distinct from the impost under Section 51 or under Section 6
This is the clear outcome of the scheme of Section 6B and the effect of Section 6B2 of the Act
Section 6B2 by providing for the application of the provisions of the Act  to the tax under Section 6B as they apply to the sales or purchase tax under the Act recognises the distinction between the additional tax on the one hand and the other imposts under the Act  on the other 
Section 201 creates and confers a right of appeal
Sub Section 3 of Section 20 seeks to restrict that right and subject it to certain conditions
It appears us 84 that the tax in Section 20 3 on the payment of which the right of appeal is mad e dependent should receive a construction which would advance that right and one which would not make that right dependent upon or subject to payment of a tax which is distinct from the tax constituting the subject matter of the appeal  
In the present case the appeal is one directed against the main impost and no part of the assessment relating to the additional tax is the subject matter of the appeal
That being so the view that non payment of the additional tax would bar the entertainment of the appeal is not unjustified
 We are not inclined to agree with the view taken by the High Court Section 6B of the Act as it stood at the relevant time reads as under 6 B Levy of additional tax
1 There shall be levied and collected from every dealer liable to pay tax under section 5 or under section 6 and from every dealer liable to pay tax under Section 25 B an additional tax at the rate of ten paise in the rupee on the sales tax or purchase tax or both payable by such dealer Provided that in respect of the sale or purchase of any of the declared goods mentioned in the Fourth Schedule the tax together with the additional tax shall not exceed four percent of the sale or purchase price thereof
2The provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder including those relating to refund or exemption from tax shall so far as may be apply in relation to the levy assessment and collection of the additional sales tax or purchase tax or both as they apply in relation to the levy assessment and collection of sales tax or purchase tax under this Act
 85 It is obvious that the additional tax is leviable at the rate of ten paise in the rupee on the sales tax or purchase tax or both payable by such dealer
The additional tax is computed with reference to the tax payable by the dealer
When once the assessing authority determines the sales tax or purchase tax under the Act the additional tax is levied automatically and becomes part and parcel of the assessment order
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 203 talks of payment of the tax and penalty not disputed in the appeal it obviously includes the additional tax
On the plain language of Section 203 of the Act it is not possible to make any distinction between the tax and the addition tax and the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the undisputed tax which includes additional tax has to be deposited before the appeal is entertained
The fact that the quantum of the additional tax is determined with reference to the sales taxpurchase tax impost would not alter its character
The additional tax is nothing but an enhancement in the rate of the sales taxpurchase tax under the Act
As soon as the assessing authority determines the levy of sales taxpurchase tax the additional tax under Section 6B become part of the assessment order
Similarly if the main impost under Section 5 1 is successfully challenged the reasoning sustaining the challenge would also ipso facto affect the validity of the additional impost under Section 6B of the Act
We are therefore of the view that the High court was not justified in holding that additional tax under Section 6B was not a tax for the purposes of Section 20 3 of the Act
We allow the appeal  set aside the judgment of the High court and dismiss the revision petition filed by the assessee before the High Court
No costs
UR Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant State issued a notification under section 4 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act 1953 covering the land comprised in the tea garden of the respondent company
The Revenue Officer issued notices to the respondent company initiating proceedings for assessment of rent
The Company objected stating that it was not an intermediary within the meaning of the Act and since its tea estate comprised of free hold land the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to assess the rent under Section 422 of the Act
The Revenue Officer rejected the contention and fixed the rent at Rs237594 per year
On revision preferred by the State the Revenue Officer determined the rent at Rs876524 per year
The Company preferred appeals before the Tribunal
The appeals were dismissed in default and the restoration applications were also rejected
Thereafter the Company preferred applications before the High Court under Section 115 CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution for restoration of the two appeals and obtained stay of the operation of the Revenue Officer s order
During the pendency of the cases the Additional Deputy Commissioner informed the respondent that inspite of the repeated reminders the company had not executed the long term lease for 30 years on prepayment of the requisite number of instalments or rent and cess
The respondent company replied pointing out that the High Court had granted the stay order and therefore the matter stood stayed till the disposal of the said cases
Thereafter the Collector served upon the Company a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act 880 1882 determining the tenancy of the company In respect of the tea garden on the expiry of the specified date
The company was required to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the tea garden
In reply to the said notice the company stated that in view of the stay order granted by the High Court no further proceedings be taken
Thereafter the Collector took over the possession of the tea garden
The applications before the High Court were still pending
However aggrieved by the order of the Collector taking over its tea garden the Respondent preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court Allowing the writ petition the High Court directed the appellant State Government and other authorities to deliver the possession of the tea garden to the Company within a month
Aggrieved by the High Court s order the State as also the West Bengal Tea Development Corporation to whom the possession of the tea garden is transferred by the State preferred appeals before this Court
Disposing of the appeals this Court HELD1
The Revenue Officer had initially determined the rent at the rate of Rs237194 per year but the same was not accepted by the Government and on a representation made by the State Government the Revenue Officer had refixed the rent at Rs876924 per year by order dated 2281968
The Company had challenged the rent refixed at Rs 876924 and the High Court had stayed the order of the Revenue Officer fixing the rent at the rate of Rs876924
In view of these circumstances it was necessary on the part of the Collector to have passed an order of summary settlement as contemplated under Form I Schedule F of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Rules 1954
The High Court was therefore right in holding that the Collector had no jurisdiction to terminate the tenancy on the ground of non payment of rent for not executing a lease deed inasmuch as the Collector had not mentioned in the notice terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act that he was prepared to accept the rent at the rate of Rs 237594 per year as determined initially by the Revenue Officer
886 F H 887 AB 2In order to do complete justice between the parties it is proper that the respondent Company should be given the prosession of the tea garden provided the Company pays the entire arrears of rent from 2771965to 2141981 the date when the Company was dispossessed 881 calculated at the rate of Rs 876924 per year after adjusting any amount already paid within three months
There would be no necessity for the Collector to make any order of summary settlement and a long term lease should be executed as contemplated under sub section 3 of Section 6 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act 1953
As soon as the arrears of rent are paid by the Company and a lease deed is executed the Company should be handed over the possession of the tea garden
In case any increase in the amount of rent is permissible under the law due to lapse of time the State Government would be free to take the same into consideration while granting the long term lease
887 B D