2005 (7) TMI 641 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to provisional assessment order based on lack of jurisdiction due to passing beyond 180 days.

Analysis:
The High Court of Karnataka heard a writ petition filed by a dealer registered under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, challenging a provisional assessment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner contended that the officer lacked jurisdiction to pass the order beyond the 180-day limit specified in the Act. The respondents argued that the petitioner should have pursued statutory remedies like appeals instead of filing a writ petition. However, the court decided to examine the case due to the clear violation of the statutory time limit.

The petitioner's counsel pointed out that the order was passed more than eight months after the date of seizure, exceeding the 180-day limit as per the proviso to section 28(6) of the Act. The government advocate argued that the proviso was introduced after the seizure date and should not apply retroactively. Additionally, it was claimed that since proceedings for provisional assessment had begun within the time frame, the delay in passing the order was justified. The court rejected these arguments, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and the urgency of provisional assessment orders.

The court referred to relevant legal precedents to support its decision, highlighting that the language of the statute clearly prohibited the making of an assessment order after the specified time limit. The court also dismissed the argument that the order had merged with an appellate decision, emphasizing that the lack of jurisdiction in passing the provisional assessment order rendered it invalid from the beginning. The court quashed the provisional assessment order and allowed the respondents to proceed with a regular assessment order in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court of Karnataka upheld the writ petition, quashing the provisional assessment order due to the officer's lack of jurisdiction in passing it beyond the statutory time limit. The court allowed the respondents to pursue a regular assessment order and adjust any tax liabilities based on the quashed provisional order.