9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Limited, Dharwad v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (DM), Hubli reported in [2012] 55 VST 401 (Karn); [2010] 69 KLJ 290, wherein it is held that only an officer, who is authorised by the Commissioner, is competent to make the reassessment. In the said case, this court quashed the reassessment order, as the officer had no express authorisation to do the reassessment. 4. The second contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the tax on iron and steel is leviable only at four per cent and not at 12.5 per cent, as is done by respondent No. 2. In support of his submissions, Sri Vikram relies on this court's decision in the case of Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited v. State of Karnataka reported in [2011] 45 VST 390 (Karn); [2010] 69 KLJ 97. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow (page 404 in 45 VST): "9. Therefore, steel and steel products used as raw material by the petitioners are incorporated into their civil works or other works contracts in the same form except that the same may be fashioned to suit the requirement, before the same merge into the works which is thereafter identified as immovable pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in your system. DCs, ACs and CTOs (Audit), apart from cases earlier allotted, have now been recently assigned inspection cases that are finalised and in respect of which data entries are made in VAT Soft CEN. Please ensure that assignment notes are duly signed and issued to the audit officers concerned so that the important revenue laden inspection reports are utilised and reassessments made at the earliest in the interest of revenue. However, if it is considered necessary to change the audit assignment to another audit officer the same may please be brought to the notice of this office for further necessary action. Further, when issuing assignment notes to the audit officer please instruct them to take up audit for the tax periods from April 5 to March 9. However, in cases where audits have been taken up earlier the audit officers may be instructed to exclude the period/s already audited. Further more, when recommending a case to this office for audit assignment please ensure that the case has not already been audited or assigned. The TIN and the periods for which audits are to be taken up and officer to whom the assignment must be given may also be mentioned. Yours fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nbsp; 16. Approve." 9. Sri Shivayogiswamy submits that based on the afore-extracted notings and communications, it cannot be disputed that respondent No. 2 has the authorisation to do the reassessment work. When he is authorised to do the auditing work, it invariably implies that he has to do the reassessment work also. According to Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy, there is no difference between auditing and reassessing. They are one and the same. As respondent No. 2 is expressly authorised to audit and verify the books of the petitioner, he also has to perform the consequential duty of reassessing, if he finds any discrepancy between the returns filed and the inspection of the accounts. 10. Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy submits that the petitioner's reply has been considered in its entirety and that respondent No. 2 has passed a detailed order. With reference to returns filed and accepted under section 35 of the VAT Act, he submits that the petitioner has not sought any deduction. If it is the case of the petitioner that the turnover is not properly considered, its remedy would be to file an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes invoking section 62 of the VAT Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39 of the VAT Act. 13. A combined reading of all these provisions would not leave anybody in doubt that the officer of the Commercial Taxes, who had to do the reassessment, has to be expressly authorised either by the Government or by the Commissioner. Such an authorisation has to be express, not implied, automatic or consequential. Note Nos. 15 and 16 and the communication, dated July 27, 2009, also do not come to the rescue of the respondents for sustaining the impugned reassessment order. The perusal of note Nos. 15 and 16 does not reveal any authorisation, much less the express authorisation in favour of respondent No. 2 to do the reassessment. Similarly, the communication, dated July 27, 2009 extracted hereinabove, is again in respect of audit assigned and that too by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Despite the best endeavours made by Sri Shivayogiswamy, he is not in a position to lay hands on any document, which is issued by the Government or the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes giving authorisation to respondent No. 2. 14. The last ditch submission urged on behalf of the respondents that the terms "audit" and "assessment" are one and the same also does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
