9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rit petitions. 3. The petitioner was a registered dealer under the provisions of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('Act' for short) and under the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act' for short). The re-assessment proceedings were concluded for the period in question determining the tax liability rejecting returns submitted by the petitioner. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, respondent No.1-prescribed authority (assessing Officer) was in the enforcement wing, inspected the business premises of the petitioner. As such, the re-assessment proceedings ought not to have been assigned to the said officer. In other words, the respondent No.1 has p re-determined to reject the returns of the petitioner and subject t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for the revenue strongly refuting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the assessee is prejudiced as such, the well considered order of the respondent No.1 cannot be interfered with, more particularly, the petitioner directly invoking the writ jurisdiction, without exhausting the alternative remedy available under the Act. The representation made to the respondent No.2 to assign the task of re-assessment to another appropriate authority in terms of Annexure- M to the writ petition clearly indicates the mind of the petitioner to pick and choose the authority for concluding the re-assessment proceedings, with the said pre-judicial mind, the assessee is scanning through the order to fish out some flaw in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xes. Though a prayer was made by the petitioner to consider and dispose of the representation dated 04.01.2018 at Annexure-J to the writ petition and to assign the task to any other prescribed authority, the same is not pressed and the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed, in so far as the second prayer is concerned. However, it could be inferred that the petitioner is not satisfied with the assignment of work to the respondent No.1 - Authority, but, such selection of the Authorities by the assesses cannot be encouraged. No assignment can be made by the Commissioner on the option or the request of the assessee. 10. It is well settled principle that entertaining the writ petitions against the assessment orders directly would consume th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
