2013 (3) TMI 83 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revised assessment order - demand notice issued - assessee contested against non acceptance of Rule 10(2) of KVAT Act - Held that - AO has completed the revised assessment, after dealing with each one of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore if their contention regarding interpretation of Rule 10(2) has not been accepted by the Assessing Officer and if the petitioner is aggrieved by that finding, it is for the petitioner to invoke their remedies in accordance with the statute itself and there is no reason to entertain the writ petition challenging the assessment order - against assessee.

Summary

Issues:

1. Challenge to the revised assessment order under the KVAT Act for the assessment year 2009-2010.
2. Allegation of violation of the proviso to Rule 10(2) of the KVAT Rules.
3. Petitioner's contention regarding interpretation of Rule 10(2) not accepted by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a writ petition filed challenging a revised assessment order under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act for the assessment year 2009-2010. The petitioner, an assessee under the KVAT Act, contended that the order was passed without considering the proviso to Rule 10(2) of the KVAT Rules. However, the court observed that the order passed by the Assessing Officer had addressed the contentions raised by the petitioner, including the specific contention regarding Rule 10(2. Each contention was examined, and the court found that the assessment was completed after due consideration, not violating the principles of natural justice.

The Assessing Officer had thoroughly dealt with all the contentions raised by the petitioner during the revised assessment process. Despite the petitioner's disagreement with the interpretation of Rule 10(2) by the Assessing Officer, the court emphasized that the petitioner had the option to avail remedies as per the statute if aggrieved by the decision. The court highlighted that challenging the assessment order through a writ petition was not warranted in this case, as the Assessing Officer had duly considered and addressed the petitioner's contentions.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's failure to have their interpretation of Rule 10(2) accepted did not provide grounds for challenging the assessment order through a writ petition. The judgment underscores the importance of utilizing statutory remedies in case of disagreement with assessment decisions under tax laws, rather than seeking redress through writ petitions.