9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 80 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of reassessment order - absence of regular Officer in the position of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) - Held that - the present petitions are disposed of with a liberty and direction to the petitioner Assessee to approach the said Respondent No.1 Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Mysore along with the stay applications filed or which if not already filed, may be filed within a period of one week from today and the petitioner assessee may appear before the said Authority in the first instance on 03/10/2017 and the said Authority will decide the stay application in accordance with law - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Quashing reassessment order for multiple years 2. Consideration of appeal by the petitioner 3. Functioning of Appellate Authority 4. Recovery of disputed demand 5. Temporary protection for the petitioner 6. Direction to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the reassessment order for the years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The petitioner's counsel argued that no regular Appellate Authority was functioning at the location where the petitioner conducted business. Despite filing appeals against raised demands and reassessment orders, the petitioner was compelled to approach the Court due to the absence of a regular Officer in the position of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). 2. The total disputed demand amounted to ?35 lakhs. The petitioner's counsel requested the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) to consider the appeals and stay applications filed by the petitioner for a fair decision in accordance with the law. 3. The petitioner's counsel also urged for temporary protection for the petitioner for four weeks until the Appellate Authority takes up the appeals and stay applications, especially considering the closure of the petitioner's business since March 31, 2016. 4. The Respondent State's counsel mentioned that Mr. Giriyannanavar, the Joint Commissioner for Commercial Taxes (Appeals) in Mysore, was actively handling appellate work despite also overseeing the Vigilance Wing. Subject to the Court's directions, he committed to addressing any stay applications filed by the petitioner promptly. 5. The Court disposed of the petitions with a direction for the petitioner to approach the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) in Mysore along with any stay applications within one week. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the Authority on a specified date for the decision on the stay application within two weeks after a hearing. The Department was restrained from taking any immediate action against the petitioner for four weeks. 6. The judgment aimed to provide a pathway for the petitioner to address the pending appeals and stay applications effectively, ensuring a fair hearing and decision by the Appellate Authority, and granting temporary protection to the petitioner during the process.
|
