9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner is a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the manufacture of electrodes, electroplating materials, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, wires and electrical instruments. It is a registered dealer under the provisions of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("the KVAT Act", for short), and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, ("the CST Act", for short). According to the petitioner, it had submitted its monthly return of turnover in Form-100, duly declaring all the transactions, both under the KVAT Act, and the CST Act for the assessment year 2010-11. The petitioner had filed the returns of the turnover under section 35 of the KVAT Act, and paid the taxes thereon. However, subsequently the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he reassessment order does not reflect the fact that the notice was ever issued to the petitioner under section 39 of the KVAT Act. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the reassessment order. 6. Section 39 of the KVAT Act is as under: "39. Reassessment of tax.- (1) Where the prescribed authority has grounds to believe that any return furnished which is deemed as assessed or any assessment issued under section 38 understates the correct tax liability of the dealer, it,- (a) may, based on any information available, re-assess, to the best of its judgment, the additional tax payable and also impose any penalty under sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) of section 72 and demand payment of any interest; and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment year 2010- 11. However, subsequent thereto, no notice was issued to the petitioner under section 39 of the KVAT Act. Thus, the very vital step in reassessing the tax liability has been skipped by the assessing officer. Thereby, the assessing officer has violated the petitioner's right under the principles of natural justice. Since a fair procedure has not been adopted by the respondent No. 2, this Court has no other option, but to set aside the reassessment order dated April 27, 2017. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are, hereby, allowed. The reassessment order, dated April 27, 2017, is set aside; the case is remanded back to the assessing officer. The assessing officer is directed to reassess the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
