9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The facts are being taken from W.P.No.13776/2017. The petitioner-Company has challenged the legality of the assessment order, dated 27.02.2017, whereby the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-1.3, Bangalore, has reassessed the tax liability for the period April 2012 to March 2013 and has directed the petitioner to pay the total tax, interest and penalty amounting to Rs. 51,00,142/-. 3. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003 ('KVAT Act', for short). The petitioner happens to be a manufacturer, and trader of ayurvedic proprietary medicine products marketed in the name of "Nisargalaya", a registered brand name under Trade Marks Act. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the documentary evidence. Without considering the reply filed by the petitioner, and without giving a copy of the documentary evidence, namely, the inspection report dated 16.11.2015, the Assessing Officer has passed the impugned assessment order dated 27.02.2017. Hence this petition before this Court. 6. Mr. Mallahar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that once an inspection rep ort was drawn on 16.11.2015, once the petitioner had requested for copy of the same, by his letter dated 17.02.2017, the revenue department was legally bound to furnish a copy of the said report. However, the respondents have failed to do so. Secondly, the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer, in the impugned order, is self contradicto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had asked for the documentary evidence, namely, the inspection report. However, in the impugned order, the Assessing Officer claims that "he has formed an opinion with regard to the taxability of the commodity dealt in by the assessee on the basis of independent examination of the nature of goods sold with comparison to the items enlisted in the III Schedule to the KVAT Act, 2003 and having found that the commodity dealt in does not fit into any of the entries in the Schedule, it was proposed to levy tax under Section 41(b) to the KVAT Act, 2003 and as such, the furnishing of documentary evidences does not arise." 10. The view expressed by the Assessing Officer is clearly contradictory to the fact that on 16.11. 2015, an inspection report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly misplaced. Merely giving an opportunity of hearing, but by withholding material documentary evidence, which is read against the assessee by the department, the principles of natural justice are not complied with. The words "reasonable opportunity of hearing" are not merely limited to oral hearing to be given to the aggrieve d party. An opportunity of hearing also requires the furnishing of the documentary evidence, which may be used by the revenue department against the assessee. Thus, the assessee must have access to the documentary evidence, which is likely to be used against him, before the assessee can be asked to submit his reply to the notice. However, in the present case, since the copy of the inspection report was denied to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
