2015 (3) TMI 1137 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Writ petition - Rectification of VAT re-assessment - in the re-assessment order Works Contract turn over was not considered - Held that - undisputedly respondent is the authority, which can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 39(1) and 39(2) of KVAT Act, 2003 while concluding the re-assessment proceedings and impugned order would also indicate that notices had been issued to petitioner prior to initiation of re-assessment proceedings and petitioner had participated in the proceedings before adjudicating authority through authorized representative. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the claim made in the writ petition and keeping open all contentions to be urged before appellate authority, this writ petition is dismissed. - Appeal dismissed for want of alternate appellate remedy.

Issues:
1. Re-assessment proceedings for the period April 2007 to March 2008.
2. Rectification application filed by the petitioner.
3. Consideration of Works Contract turnover in re-assessment order.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Maintainability of the writ petition due to alternate remedy of appeal.
6. Correctness and legality of the impugned orders.
7. Jurisdiction of the respondent-authority in re-assessment proceedings.
8. Exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner, a Limited Company engaged in Works Contract activities, challenged re-assessment proceedings for the period April 2007 to March 2008. The petitioner contended that Works Contract turnover was not considered in the re-assessment order, as required by the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005.

2. The petitioner filed a rectification application on the ground that the Works Contract turnover was not properly considered in the re-assessment order. The respondent-authority proceeded to adjudicate the application, leading to the conclusion of re-assessment under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

3. The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed erroneously, citing a violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner's counsel contended that the tax component calculation by the respondent-authority was contrary to the Rules.

4. The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternate remedy of filing an appeal under Section 62 of the KVAT Act. The respondent supported the impugned orders and emphasized the availability of the statutory appeal process.

5. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 62 of the KVAT Act. The Court noted that the petitioner had participated in the re-assessment proceedings and dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner two weeks to file an appeal before the appellate authority.

6. The Court emphasized that it could examine the correctness of an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, subject to exceptions like violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction. The Court declined the petitioner's argument regarding the erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the respondent-authority.

7. The judgment highlighted that the respondent-authority had issued notices to the petitioner before initiating re-assessment proceedings and that the petitioner had participated through its authorized representative. The Court dismissed the writ petition, allowing all contentions to be raised before the appellate authority.

In conclusion, the High Court of Karnataka found the writ petition to be not maintainable due to the availability of an alternate remedy of appeal, emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures in tax matters.

← Previous Next →