2016 (11) TMI 460 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Challenge to the Notice - Imposition of penalty u/s 53 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - explanation furnished by the petitioner including the furnishing of e-sugam number is not satisfactory - Held that - Since the impugned notice is merely a notice calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the penalty in question may not be imposed upon him, the writ petition at this stage filed against the same is pre-mature. - this Court relegates the petitioner back to the Assessing Authority with a direction to the Assessing Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and then pass appropriate speaking orders in accordance with law - writ petition disposed off - matter remanded.

Summary

Issues:
Notice seeking penalty under Section 53 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenges a notice issued by the Assessing Authority seeking to impose a penalty under Section 53 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that they had complied with all requirements under the Act but the Assessing Authority still issued a notice indicating dissatisfaction with the explanation provided, particularly regarding the e-sugam number. The Court advised the petitioner to furnish their explanation directly to the Authority to contest the penalty imposition. The petitioner, as the consignee, was required to produce relevant documents like Invoice, Goods Transport Receipt, and the e-sugam number for verification during goods transit checks.

The petitioner contended that they had already submitted the necessary documents, including the e-sugam number, at the time of checking and seizure of goods. Despite this, the Authority rejected the documents without providing a reason, leading to the issuance of a second notice under Section 53(12) of the Act. The Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case at that stage to avoid prejudicing the petitioner. It emphasized that the current notice was merely a call for the petitioner to justify why the penalty should not be imposed, making the writ petition premature. The Court directed the petitioner to present their explanation and documents to the Assessing Authority for consideration, highlighting the availability of appellate remedies under the Act if an adverse order is passed.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition without costs, instructing the petitioner to address their representation and documents to the Assessing Authority for a lawful decision on the penalty imposition issue. The Court refrained from assessing the petitioner's explanation for the delayed submission of documents, emphasizing the need for the Authority to evaluate the representation in line with the law and issue appropriate orders accordingly.