2017 (9) TMI 1725 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Validity of reassessment - survey proceedings undertaken at the business premises of the petitioner u/s 52 of the KVAT Act, 2003 - Supervisory Jurisdiction on the part of this Court - Held that - This court is satisfied that the proceedings of the respondent-Commercial Taxes Department, in the present case, does not require any interference or investigation under the directions of this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. This court does not have any supervisory jurisdiction to oversee the dealing of the complaints of the individual assessees by heads of Commercial Taxes Department or any other Department for that matter. If there are allegations of corruption or other specific nature duly supported with the evidence, there are agencies and authorities to look into that and the writ jurisdiction of this court cannot be invoked for the purpose of directing such investigations - If there is any allegations of the petitioner made against that Customs Official, that is not the subject-matter of the present writ petition. Therefore, even if a complaint is filed against any official of the Commercial Taxes Department as well, that too, also cannot be the matter of investigation under the writ jurisdiction. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the Commercial Taxes Department based on intelligence report.
2. Authorization of the concerned Additional Commissioner for the reassessment proceedings.
3. Allegations of threats by the petitioner towards the Assistant Commissioner and subsequent transfer of proceedings.
4. Initiation of proceedings against the petitioner for assessment/reassessment under section 39 of the Act.
5. Request for an enquiry by the petitioner against the concerned authorities.
6. Involvement of a Customs Officer in the proceedings and previous legal actions taken against the officer.
7. Lack of communication regarding the disposal of the petitioner's complaint.
8. Jurisdiction of the court to oversee complaints and investigations within government departments.
9. Allegations against the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and their impact on the ongoing proceedings.
10. Disposition of the writ petition and further actions available to the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The High Court examined the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated by the Commercial Taxes Department based on an intelligence report. The court found the proceedings to be in order, starting from the survey conducted at the petitioner's business premises under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
2. The court scrutinized the authorization process for the reassessment proceedings and noted the importance of proper authorization by the concerned Additional Commissioner in favor of the Assistant Commissioner. The court emphasized the need for due assignment of authority for such proceedings.
3. Allegations of threats made by the petitioner towards the Assistant Commissioner resulted in the transfer of proceedings to a higher officer, the Deputy Commissioner-I. The court acknowledged this transfer and the reasons behind it, ensuring the continuation of proceedings in an orderly manner.
4. The court considered the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner for assessment/reassessment under section 39 of the Act, highlighting the importance of following legal procedures in such cases.
5. The petitioner requested an enquiry against the concerned authorities, which the court examined in detail, emphasizing the need for proper legal recourse in such situations.
6. The involvement of a Customs Officer in the proceedings raised previous legal actions taken against the officer. The court reviewed past legal directives related to the officer's conduct to ensure fairness and transparency in the ongoing proceedings.
7. Lack of communication regarding the disposal of the petitioner's complaint was addressed by the court, emphasizing the importance of proper communication and transparency in such matters.
8. The court clarified its jurisdiction regarding overseeing complaints and investigations within government departments, highlighting the limitations of its supervisory role in such cases.
9. Allegations against the Assistant Commissioner of Customs were examined in light of their impact on the ongoing proceedings. The court emphasized the need for evidence-based allegations and proper legal procedures in addressing such issues.
10. The writ petition was disposed of with the court providing guidance on further actions available to the petitioner, ensuring compliance with relevant laws and procedures for addressing grievances within government departments.