9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1361 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxProtective assessment order - Section 38(2) read with Section 36 and Section 72 of the KVAT Act, 2003 - Held that - the respondent- Commissioner of Commercial Taxes department has assigned the matters for fresh and regular re-assessment proceedings U/s 39(1) of the KVAT Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)- 5.5, DVO-05, Bengaluru - the writ petition has become infructuous as the impugned protective assessment order stands withdrawn - petition dismissed.
Issues: Petition against protective assessment order under KVAT Act, withdrawal of order due to initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Section 39(1) of KVAT Act.
Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged a protective assessment order passed under Section 38(2) of the KVAT Act, 2003. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued the order on 29.5.2017. The petitioner sought relief through the writ petition against this order. 2. The learned AGA submitted an affidavit before the Court from Mr. Chandrakant Malapur, an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The affidavit stated that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had reassigned the matter for fresh re-assessment proceedings under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-5.5, DVO-05, Bengaluru. The affidavit detailed the assignments issued by the Commissioner for VAT and CST periods of 2014-15 and 2015-16 to the Deputy Commissioner for re-assessment. 3. As a result of this submission, the Court found the writ petition to be infructuous since the impugned protective assessment order had been withdrawn by the authorities due to the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003. Therefore, the Court disposed of the present petition. 4. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to participate in the re-assessment proceedings under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003. The petitioner was also allowed to raise objections during the proceedings, and the respondent-authority was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. The authority was instructed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The Court made no order regarding costs in this matter.
|
