9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1403 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxIssuance of C declaration form - KVAT Act, 2003 - non-speaking order - Held that - The material on record clearly depicts though the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 12.05.2008 (Annexure-G) issued clarification, still the first respondent without considering the Section 15(5)(a) of KVAT Act, 2003 has proceeded to pass the one line impugned order which is not a speaking order without reference to the clarification issued by the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes. Therefore, same cannot be sustained - petition allowed.
Issues:
Petitioner seeking to quash an endorsement for not issuing 'C' declaration forms for the purchase of machinery. Violation of principles of natural justice. Interpretation of Section 15(5)(a) of KVAT Act, 2003. Analysis: The petitioner, a Civil Contractor, filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash an endorsement by the 1st respondent dated 08.06.2017, which refused to issue 'C' declaration forms for the purchase of machinery. The petitioner argued that the refusal without notice or hearing violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the Commissioner's clarification allowed for the purchase of machinery using 'C' declaration forms, as per Section 15(5)(a) of the KVAT Act, 2003. The petitioner emphasized that the first respondent's action was arbitrary and sought the quashing of the impugned order. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned order was a violation of natural justice and failed to consider the Commissioner's clarification. On the other hand, the AGA representing the respondent conceded that the order was not detailed and agreed to reconsider the petitioner's case. The Court noted that the petitioner was engaged in civil works and had applied for 'C' declaration forms, citing the Commissioner's clarification from 2008. The Court found that the first respondent's order was not a speaking order and did not reference the relevant provisions of the KVAT Act. The Court held that the order was unsustainable due to the lack of notice and hearing, contrary to the law. Ultimately, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the impugned order dated 08.06.2017, and remanded the matter to the first respondent for reconsideration. The Court directed the first respondent to review the case in light of Section 15(5)(a) of the KVAT Act and the Commissioner's clarification, with a mandate to pass an appropriate order within two months from the date of receipt of the Court's order.
|
