9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The petitioner is aggrieved by the reassessment orders passed under section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act for the period from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006 for each of the month, copy of the order is produced as annexure C, dated January 20, 2009 and consequential demand notice annexures D to D9. The submission of Mr. Surenderan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequential demand notices, that the order apart from being bad on merits as the premise on which the second respondent has re-determined the liability is a postulate which is not free from doubt and even as indicated by the Supreme Court in the case of Larsen Toubro Limited v. State of Karnataka reported in [2008] 17 VST 460, but more importantly the second respondent lacks jurisdiction to pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the first respondent having already passed the assessment order, it is now not open to respondent No. 2 to reopen the same; that it is only for the first respondent having reopened once earlier if at all to pass further orders and not by respondent No. 2; that respondent No. 2 cannot pass further reassessment orders, etc. It is on such premise, the impugned orders are sought to be attacked, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the Act by filing appeals as provided under the statute and to seek his relief. These writ petitions being prima facie examined only for the purpose of ascertaining any patent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the second respondent and therefore any observation incidentally on the merits of the order is not to be construed as an order passed, but is only for the purpose of examining the qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
