9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 94 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxValidity of ex-parte assessment order - Jurisdiction of Officers to proceed with the assessment - KVAT Act - period 2012-2013 - HELD THAT - The jurisdiction of the officers to proceed with the reassessment relating to the tax period 2012-2013 was not clear amongst the concerned authorities. The ex-parte re-assessment order now impugned certainly deserves to be set aside for the reason that assessee had appeared before DCCT (Audit)-5.2 Bengaluru pursuant to the re-assessment notice issued by the said authority relating to the tax period in question if that be the position the DCCT (Audit)-5.2 ought to have transferred the proceedings initiated by him to the competent authority assigned with the jurisdiction. That having not been done the petitioner is made to suffer. This Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order impugned at Annexure-E dated 20.02.2018 as well as the Demand Notice at Annexure-F dated 03.10.2018 relating to the tax period 2012-2013 and remit the proceedings to the respondent No.2 DCCT(Audit)-5.5 Bengaluru to redo the assessment after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to ex-parte re-assessment order and demand notice under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for tax period 2012-2013. Analysis: The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, challenged an ex-parte re-assessment order and demand notice issued by respondent No.2 for the tax period 2012-2013. The petitioner had initially responded to a re-assessment notice issued by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) - 5.2 and provided relevant documents. Subsequently, another re-assessment notice was issued by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) - 5.5, leading to confusion as the same tax periods were involved. Despite the petitioner's efforts to highlight this issue, an ex-parte re-assessment order was passed. The petitioner contended that the jurisdiction of the officers for reassessment was unclear, and the order deserved to be set aside as the petitioner had already appeared before the relevant authority for the initial notice. The Court observed that there was confusion regarding the assignment note issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) - 5.2 for different tax periods, which led to the issuance of a re-assessment notice for the tax period 2012-2013. An endorsement was issued to the petitioner by Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) - 5.5, highlighting the assignment of assessment under VAT and GST for 2012-2013. The Court held that the ex-parte re-assessment order was unjust as the petitioner had already cooperated with the authorities for the initial notice, and the proceedings were not transferred to the appropriate jurisdictional authority. Consequently, the Court decided to set aside the impugned order and demand notice and remit the proceedings back to Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) - 5.5 for reassessment after providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to be heard. As a result, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) - 5.5 to present objections to the re-assessment notice and ordered a re-assessment in compliance with the law promptly. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, ensuring a fair process for the petitioner in the re-assessment proceedings.
|
