2005 (4) TMI 558 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Provisional assessment under section 28(6) of the KST Act by an officer below the rank of the assessing authority of the dealer; Jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner to permit provisional assessment; Validity of provisional assessments made by the fourth respondent; Timeliness of provisional assessment under the fourth proviso of section 28(6); Authority to recover tax and send assessment order to assessing authority; Quashing of orders and liberty to send a report for reassessment.

The judgment addresses the issue of provisional assessment under section 28(6) of the Karnataka Sales Tax (KST) Act by an officer below the rank of the assessing authority of the dealer. The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged the provisional assessment made by the fourth respondent, contending that the permission granted by the Joint Commissioner for such assessment was contrary to law. The Court noted that the amended section 28(6) mandated that the officer taking action shall not be below the rank of the assessing authority. Consequently, the provisional assessments made by the fourth respondent, who was below the rank of the assessing officer, were deemed without jurisdiction. The Court quashed the orders of provisional assessment due to this lack of authority.

Another issue dealt with in the judgment was the timeliness of the provisional assessment under the fourth proviso of section 28(6) of the KST Act. The Court highlighted that the law stipulated that no provisional assessment shall be made after 180 days from the date of seizure of documents. While the amended section allowed for provisional assessment even after the end of the relevant assessment year, it emphasized that the competent intelligence authority must act within the specified timeframe. In this case, the Court concluded that the belated stage at which the provisional assessment was made did not align with the statutory provisions, and thus, the intelligence authority could not be permitted to proceed with the assessment.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed the authority granted to the intelligence authority to recover tax and send the assessment order to the assessing authority for further action. The Court clarified that the amended provisions empowered the intelligence authority to recover taxes assessed and send a copy of the provisional assessment order to the assessing authority. However, in the present case, the Court ruled that the intelligence authority could only send a report along with necessary documents to the assessing authority for the completion of assessment or reassessment in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court quashed the orders of provisional assessment and granted liberty to the fourth respondent to send a report to the assessing authority for reassessment based on the search and seizure conducted, emphasizing the need for compliance with the statutory provisions and jurisdictional requirements.