2015 (4) TMI 1173 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Correctness and legality of the re-assessment order - jurisdiction - Held that - petitioner if so advised, would be entitled to file a statutory appeal against order of re- assessment dated 10.02.2015 Annexure-E within three weeks from today. In the event of such appeal being filed appellate authority shall not insist for application for condonation of delay being filed and it shall examine such appeal on merits and in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of re-assessment order and demand notice for the assessment year 2011-12.
2. Authorization of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Rule 46 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules.
3. Jurisdiction of the re-assessment order under section 39(2) of the Act.
4. Validity of the notice for reassessment and application of mind by the assessing officer.
5. Interpretation of the order dated 09.01.2014 and its relevance to the reassessment process.
6. Transfer of assignment from one authority to another for re-assessment.

Issue 1: The petitioner challenged the re-assessment order and demand notice for the assessment year 2011-12. The order dated 09.01.2014 was issued under section 39(1) and not section 38(1), indicating a valid reassessment process. The Commissioner authorized the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for reassessment, as per Rule 46, supporting the legality of the re-assessment order.

Issue 2: The petitioner argued that the first respondent lacked authorization under Rule 46 to initiate proceedings under section 39(2) of the Act. However, the court found that the Commissioner had validly authorized the Deputy Commissioner for reassessment, ensuring the legality of the process.

Issue 3: The jurisdiction of the re-assessment order under section 39(2) was questioned by the petitioner. The court examined the authorization process and determined that the assignment was valid, dismissing the challenge to the jurisdiction of the re-assessment order.

Issue 4: The petitioner contended that the assessing officer did not apply his mind during the reassessment process, making the order invalid. However, the court found that the officer had considered the records and applied the relevant provisions, rejecting the argument of lack of application of mind.

Issue 5: The interpretation of the order dated 09.01.2014 was crucial in determining the validity of the reassessment process. The court clarified that the order was passed under section 39(1) and not section 38(1), supporting the legality of the reassessment order.

Issue 6: The transfer of assignment from one authority to another for re-assessment was challenged by the petitioner. The court examined the authorization process and found that the assignment was valid, in line with the Act and Rules, leading to the rejection of the writ petitions.

In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of the re-assessment order and dismissed the writ petitions. The petitioner was advised to file a statutory appeal against the order within three weeks. The court directed the registry to return the certified copy of the order if sought, replacing it with a duly attested photocopy.