9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable - The demand for interest it is claimed is illegal, as at that point of time, the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that since entry 25 of the Sixth Schedule to the KST Act was struck down as being unconstitutional though the provision continued on the statute book, it was inoperative and therefore, had not paid taxes, which was legitimate on the part of the petitioner. Held that: - The learned Government Advocate would not deny that no notice was served before passing the rectification order - petition are allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition Nos. 32384 - 32395 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2016 - Anand Byrareddy, J. K. Arvind Kamath for the petitioner S. V. Giri Kumar, Additional Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment, had issued a circular instructing the assessing authorities to proceed with the assessment as per entry 25 which originally stood. This was challenged before this court in a batch of writ petitions. This court had allowed the petitions in the case of Golden Color Lab Studio v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2004] 134 STC 570 (Karn); ILR 2003 Kar 4883, holding that a provision once declared as unconstitutional, could not be brought to life by mere administrative instructions, unless it was re-enacted by the State Legislature. 3. Thereafter, the first respondent re-introduced entry 25 in Schedule VI to the KST Act in 2004, in identical terms as it appeared earlier and that too with retrospective effect, with effect from July 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing. By the said order, the said respondent also levied penalty and interest on the said reassessed turnover. In the meantime, by an order dated January 30, 2015 in the matter between the State of Karnataka v. Pro Lab [2015] 78 VST 451 (SC), theSupreme Court allowed the Special Leave Petition filed by the State and set aside the order of this court and upheld the constitutional validity of entry 25 of the Sixth Schedule to the KST Act. It also upheld the retrospective effect of entry 25, thereby making it possible for the assessment and levy of tax from the year 1989. Pursuant to the Pro Lab judgment [2015] 78 VST 451 (SC), the second respondent had passed an order dated February 24, 2015 under section 69(1) of the KVAT Act, by whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocessing services for the assessment year 2007-08. Therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved by that as well. The demand for interest it is claimed is illegal, as at that point of time, the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that since entry 25 of the Sixth Schedule to the KST Act was struck down as being unconstitutional though the provision continued on the statute book, it was inoperative and therefore, had not paid taxes, which was legitimate on the part of the petitioner. But however, this is sought to be treated as a default on the part of the petitioner, which may not be correct. It is this and other contentions on which the petitioner seeks that the rectification order passed be set aside, as there was no prior notice to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
