2009 (4) TMI 848 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Reassessment orders under section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act for the period from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006.
2. Lack of jurisdiction of the second respondent to pass the reassessment order.
3. Prima facie examination of the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the second respondent.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with writ petitions filed by an assessee under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, challenging reassessment orders passed under section 39 for the period from April 1, 2005, to March 31, 2006. The petitioner contested that the second respondent, who was not the assessing authority, lacked jurisdiction to pass the reassessment order. The petitioner argued that only the prescribed authority with jurisdiction conferred by the Commissioner could issue reassessment orders under section 39. The petitioner contended that since the first respondent had already passed an assessment order, it was not within the second respondent's purview to reopen the assessment. The primary contention was the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the second respondent to pass the reassessment order.

The court considered the arguments regarding the lack of jurisdiction and observed that if both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were empowered to pass orders under sections 38 and 39 of the Act, then the lack of jurisdiction of the second respondent to pass the order under section 39 was not valid merely because the first respondent had already passed an order under section 38. The court emphasized that the lack of jurisdiction in the second respondent to pass such an order was not established. The judgment highlighted that the primary issue was the lack of jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue the reassessment order under section 39.

The court clarified that the examination of the lack of jurisdiction was only prima facie and not a final determination on the merits of the order passed by the second respondent. It was emphasized that the consequence of the order was the re-determination of the petitioner's liability under the Act. The court directed the petitioner to pursue remedies provided under the statute, including filing appeals, to seek relief. The judgment concluded by dismissing the writ petitions, indicating that the petitioner could raise all contentions before the appellate authority, including the question of jurisdiction. The court's decision was based on the lack of jurisdiction of the second respondent to pass the reassessment order under section 39, emphasizing the importance of following statutory remedies for seeking relief.