2021 (3) TMI 1021 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Re-assessment order - main thrust on which the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner is seeking for setting aside the order passed by the KAT is that the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax did not authorise the AA for re-assessment but was only limited to the extent to the verification of refund claimed - HELD THAT - It is seen that though the Commissioner of Commercial Tax ordered for verification of claim of refund by the revision petitioner, what is method that is adoptable to verify the refund claimed is not mentioned in the said order. Further, the order also reads that the authorities were invested with the power on assessment, re-assessment and other related statutory proceedings. In the absence of any direction particularly to carry out the verification of refund claimed by the revision petitioner, the assessment officer has verified the books to find out whether the claimed refund is in order or not. It is at this juncture, the FAA incidentally verified the books of accounts of the revision petitioner. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently contended that the AA did not have the right to reassess the accounts of the revision petitioner as there was no specific order by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for reassessment - said submission made on behalf of the revision petitioner cannot be accepted for more than one reasons. Firstly, from the translation copy made available in respect of the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax did invest the power for the AA for verifying the refund claimed by the revision petitioner. How exactly the claim of refund should be reassessed is not mentioned. Under the circumstances, the AA did verify the books of accounts of revision petitioner to verify the refund claimed. It is in that process, the irregularities have been noticed by the AA and Secondly, learned counsel is unable to point out what is the illegality committed by the AA when he has noticed the irregularities committed by the revision petitioner while claiming refund. Nor, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is in a position to point out which of the provisions of the Act is violated by the AA while carrying out such an exercise. It is an admitted fact that the revision petitioner did not mention the charging and collection of the taxes in the individual invoices. Therefore, these aspects of the matter, have been dealt by the FAA and the KAT while recording the finding that the process and procedure adopted by the AA is factually correct and there is no illegality committed. Revision petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dated 06.03.2018 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal regarding refund claimed under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis:
The Revision Petitioner, a retailer of drugs, medicines, cosmetics, and allied articles, challenged the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) disallowing refund claimed. The Commercial Tax Officer (AA) disallowed the refund due to irregularities in claiming deductions, including not separately charging and collecting taxes in individual invoices. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (FAA) upheld the AA's order, leading to the appeal before the KAT. The Revision Petitioner raised various grounds before the KAT, including lack of authorization for re-assessment, application of tax laws, and procedural errors.

The KAT dismissed the appeal, prompting the Revision Petitioner to approach the High Court. The Revision Petitioner argued that the AA, FAA, and KAT misinterpreted the facts. They contended that the Commissioner of Commercial Tax's order did not authorize re-assessment, only verification of the refund claim. The High Court examined the Commissioner's order and found it empowered the AA to verify the refund claimed, even though the specific method was not detailed. The AA's verification revealed irregularities, leading to the disallowance of deductions.

The Revision Petitioner argued that the AA lacked authority for reassessment without specific direction. However, the High Court disagreed, stating the AA was within rights to verify the refund claim based on the Commissioner's order. The High Court noted the Revision Petitioner's failure to demonstrate any illegality by the AA or violation of tax laws. The FAA and KAT's findings were deemed correct, upholding the AA's actions as lawful.

The High Court emphasized that the Revision Petitioner's failure to mention tax collection in individual invoices was addressed by the authorities. The High Court's role was limited to assessing jurisdictional errors or legal violations, finding none in this case. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition, affirming the KAT's order.