2019 (6) TMI 177 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Recall of assessment/demand - Section 38(5)(b) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - petitions was opposed mainly contending that the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to the discretionary remedy in extraordinary jurisdiction - HELD THAT - The reliance placed by the petitioner on the decisions enlisted in the writ petitions do not come to his aid in the absence of any explanation having been offered for not putting the order dated 03.05.2013 in challenge. He has rushed to the Writ Court only after the Magistrate Court has issued the Accused Summons on 16.01.2018 at Annexure-K. Even there he has brooked delay in as much as the petition is filed on 27.07.2018. Prima facie, petitioner does not appear to be a scrupulous tax payer. No other ground having been urged, these writ petitions being devoid of merit fail. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to endorsement by Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 38(5)(b) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a proprietor of a business, challenged an endorsement by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes seeking the recall of an assessment/demand dated 09.06.2011 under Section 38(5)(b) of the Act. The respondents opposed the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner's conduct disentitles him to the discretionary remedy in extraordinary jurisdiction. The impugned order highlighted that the assessment was made in the absence of the petitioner's Books of Accounts, which he failed to produce despite repeated notices. Additionally, the petitioner's previous application under Section 38(5)(b) had been rejected, rendering the present application not maintainable. The delay in challenging the rejection order and rushing to the Writ Court only after being issued Accused Summons raised doubts about the petitioner's credibility as a tax payer.

The impugned order emphasized that the petitioner had not complied with instructions to produce Books of Accounts within seven days in a previous order dated 03.05.2013. The petitioner's reliance on cited decisions in the writ petitions was deemed insufficient, given the lack of explanation for not challenging the earlier rejection order. The court noted the petitioner's delay in filing the petition after receiving the Accused Summons and concluded that the petitioner did not appear to be a scrupulous tax payer. With no other grounds raised, the court found the writ petitions devoid of merit and dismissed them accordingly.