9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner has been maintaining the books of accounts and filing the Monthly Return s in Form VAT-100 from time to time and Annual Returns in Form VAT-240 as contemplated under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act' for short). The Enforcement Wing had conducted inspection of the business premises of the petitioner. Based on the intelligence report, the first respondent issued a proposition notice under Section-39(1) of the KVAT Act, relevant to the tax period April'2009 to March'2010 and proceeded to conclude re-assessment based on the figures contained in the VAT-240 filed by the petitioner. Similarly, Notices under Section-39(1) of the KVAT Act was also issued relating to the tax period April'20 10 to March'2011. 4. It is the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally difficult for the petitioner to produce the same before the Prescribed Authority. It is submitted that the petitioner is not avoiding the submission of the books of accounts and vouchers to substantiate its claim regarding the deduction of labour and other charges under Rule-3(2)(l) of KVAT Rules. 7. In this regard, a rectification application under Section-69 of KVAT Act has been filed relating to the tax period April'2009 to March'2010, which is pending consideration before the Prescribed Authority. Thus, it is submitted that the Prescribed Authority concluded the reassessment creating huge tax liability by rejecting the claim of the petitioner to deduct the labour and like charges under Rule-3(2)(l) of the KVAT Rules, which require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the parties and perused the material on record. 12. The only question involved in these writ petitions is, whether respondent No.1 i.e., the Prescribed Authority is justified in concluding the reassessment proceedings rejecting the claim of the petitioner to deduct the labour and other like charges under Section-3(2)(l) of the KVAT Rules? 13. It is trite that the burden lies on the petitioner-assessee to prove his case inasmuch as the claim made under Rule- 3(2)(l) of the KVAT Rules. In terms of Rule-3(2)(l) of KVAT Rules, all amounts actually expended towards labour charges and other like charges not involving any transfer of property in goods in connection with the execution of works contract including charges incurred for erection, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same before respondent No.1-Prescribed Authority and to that effect the rectification application has already been filed relating to the tax period April'2009 to March'2010, which is pending consideration. 15. In the circumstances as narrated above, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not maintained the books of accounts or not willing to produce the books of accounts. As such, relegating the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy by filing an appeal cannot be justified. It is only for the limited purpose of providing an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the books of accounts before the Prescribed Authority to avail the deduction under Section-3(2)(l) of the KVAT Rules as claimed, this Court deems it proper to set - a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
