9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1547 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPrinciples of natural justice - re-assessment proceedings was concluded for the tax periods April 2012 to March 2013 without any express authorization by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - HELD THAT - It is evident that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has issued an order assigning assessment and re-assessment under the provisions of the KVAT Act on the respondent relating to the petitioner for the tax period 2012-13. Sl.No.726 of the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 1.10.2013 placed on record by the learned counsel for the Revenue makes it clear that the reasons have been assigned for issuing the assignment note that the assessee received advance amount of ₹ 3,94,22,952 on which dealer is liable to pay tax. However in the present case, the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes placed on record envisages the authorization issued to the respondent to reassess the petitioner relating to the tax periods in question - the arguments of the learned counsel on this point is negated. Indisputably, the order impugned is an ex-parte order and assessee-petitioner is before this Court making allegations inasmuch as non service of proposition notice and assessment order - petition stands dismissed relegating the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Act.
Issues:
1. Lack of jurisdiction in re-assessment proceedings under Section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 2. Delay and laches in challenging the reassessment order. 3. Non-service of proposition notice and assessment order. 4. Availability of alternative remedy of appeal. Analysis: Issue 1: Lack of jurisdiction in re-assessment proceedings The petitioner challenged the re-assessment proceedings under Section 39(1) of the Act, contending that the respondent lacked jurisdiction as there was no express authorization by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The petitioner argued that no opportunity of hearing was provided, and neither the proposition notice nor the assessment order was served. The petitioner relied on previous judgments to support their claim. However, the respondent presented an assignment order issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes authorizing the re-assessment for the tax periods in question. The court found that the authorization was in place, negating the petitioner's arguments on jurisdiction. Issue 2: Delay and laches in challenging the reassessment order The respondent argued that the writ petition should be rejected due to delay and laches in challenging the reassessment order. It was highlighted that the petitioner participated in recovery proceedings before the Magistrate before approaching the court. The court noted that the petitioner had been challenging the assessment order unsuccessfully since 2015-16. Despite the delay, the court allowed the petitioner to file an appeal against the order within two weeks, emphasizing the importance of availing the alternative remedy without further delay. Issue 3: Non-service of proposition notice and assessment order The petitioner raised concerns regarding the non-service of the proposition notice and assessment order, which led to the challenge of the recovery proceedings before the Magistrate. The court observed that the petitioner should have challenged these issues promptly instead of waiting for the rejection of objections by the Magistrate. The court considered the petitioner's claims but ultimately decided to dismiss the writ petition, granting liberty to file an appeal within the specified timeframe. Issue 4: Availability of alternative remedy of appeal In the final decision, the court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy of filing an appeal within two weeks. The court clarified that filing an appeal would not automatically stay the recovery proceedings unless an interim stay order was obtained from the Appellate Authority. The court emphasized the importance of availing the appellate process for a comprehensive review of the matter on merits. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the jurisdictional aspects of re-assessment proceedings, highlighted the importance of timely challenges, and directed the petitioner to pursue the available appellate remedy within the specified timeframe.
|
