9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been paid under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act. As regards the sale made to SEZ Units/developers was concerned, it was claimed that exemption was sought under G.O.Ms.No.193 dated 30.12.2006. The petitioner attempted to dispel the impression gathered by respondent No.1 that the petitioner was seeking to take benefit under Section 18 of the 2006 Act. There was an apparent error made with respect to the adjustment of TDS, the impugned order needed to be recalled and, accordingly, an opportunity could have been given to the petitioner to place the relevant material on record qua other issues as well - Matter remanded back to redo the assessment. - Writ Petition Nos.38510 of 2015 and 3615 of 2016 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 and WMP No.3615 of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, by virtue of the provisions of Section 88(3)(i) of the 2006 Act. 3.4. It appears that respondent No.1 has issued a pre-assessment notice dated 29.04.014 to the petitioner. By virtue of this notice, opportunity was also sought to be given to the petitioner to file objections qua the proposals made therein. 3.5. The petitioner claims that the said notice was never served upon it. 3.6. It may be pertinent to note, at this juncture, that while the respondents referred to the pre-assessment notice dated 29.04.2014 in the common counter affidavit, neither the copy of the said notice nor any proof of the same having been dispatched and served on the petitioner, is appended to the counter affidavit. 4. Be that as it may, respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods that are exported, as is required under Section 18(2) of the 2006 Act. (iv)(b) Accordingly, the turnover equivalent to ₹ 60,79,74,999/- was assessed to tax at the rate of 14.5% under this head. (v) Lastly, tangible assets of a gross value of ₹ 5,78,98,000/- were also brought to tax at the rate of 14.5%, since, relevant details, according to respondent No.1, were not furnished. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to pay tax in the sum of ₹ 11,84,48,370/-. In addition, penalty in the sum of ₹ 1,25,92,815/- has also been imposed on the petitioner. 5.1. The record shows that a notice of final assessment and demand qua the tax imposed was also issued on the very same date, i.e., 19.10.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be subjected to levy of tax at the rate of 14.5%. 6.5. In so far as the tax imposed qua sale of tangible assets was concerned, it was indicated that the assets worth ₹ 5,78,98,000/- were disposed of by its registered office in Bangalore (now Bengaluru) and, therefore, the applicable tax had been paid under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act. Necessary material substantiating the said assertion was also sought to be placed before respondent No.1. 6.6. As regards the sale made to SEZ Units/developers was concerned, it was claimed that exemption was sought under G.O.Ms.No.193 dated 30.12.2006. The petitioner attempted to dispel the impression gathered by respondent No.1 that the petitioner was seeking to take benefit under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving regard to the aforesaid, I have put to learned counsel for the petitioner, that some amount of tax needs to be deposited. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, agreed to deposit a sum of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- with respondent No.1 to show the bonafides of the petitioner. 10. Mr.Venkatesh says that, if, the sum of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- is deposited, then, perhaps, a direction can be issued to respondent No.1 to re-visit the impugned assessment order. 11.Accordingly, having regard to the entirety of the circumstances, as also the willingness of the petitioner in agreeing to deposit a sum of ₹ 1,50,00,000/-, the impugned orders are set aside with liberty to respondent No.1 to redo the assessment. 11.1. Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
