2010 (5) TMI 895 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to Ext.P3 order passed by first respondent u/s 17 D of KGST Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Challenge to Ext.P3 order
The petitioner challenged the Ext.P3 order passed by the first respondent, seeking to sustain the order passed by the assessment officials, the second respondent, Fast Track Team (Ext.P1) u/s 17 D of the KGST Act. The petitioner argued that the assessment had been finalized as per the relevant provisions of law by a team of 5 members, and thus, the first respondent had no authority to reconsider the matter and vary the scope and extent of the liability. The first respondent's action was deemed unjustifiable as per legal provisions.

Issue 2: Legal validity of Ext.P3 order
The Court noted that Ext.P3 was passed by the first respondent after obtaining necessary sanction from the Commission. However, the Court found it difficult to accept the first respondent's actions, especially since he was not a party to the order passed by the Fast Track Team. The Court referred to a previous decision regarding the scope and finalization process u/s 17 D and highlighted that the order passed by the Fast Track Team was appealable within a specified period, indicating the legislative intent to provide finality to such proceedings. Consequently, the Court deemed Ext.P1 order as legal and set aside Ext.P3, allowing the Writ Petition. The respondents were given the option to pursue further legal recourse if available.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring the finality of assessment proceedings under the KGST Act.