9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 5.5%, respondent No.3 has levied tax at the rate of 14.5% by classifying their business as non-specified category mentioned at Sl.No.23 of the Sixth Schedule of KVAT Act - Held that:- In the facts and circumstances of the case if the Assessment Order at Annexure-F is set aside and if the Assessing Authority is directed to reconsider the matter, no serious prejudice will be caused to the respondents, as the petitioners have already paid the admitted tax at the rate of 5.5% and the difference of tax as demanded under Annexure-F may be around 10,00,000/- that can be safeguarded if the petitioners are asked to furnish bank guarantee to a tune of 10,00,000/- to respondent No.3-Assessing Authority. The Assessment Order passed by respondent No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s' firm with the local bodies and other departments of the State of Karnataka involved two or more specified categories mentioned at Sl.Nos.1 to 21 and 22 of the Sixth Schedule of KVAT Act and leviable for tax at the rate of 5.5%, respondent No.3 has levied tax at the rate of 14.5% by classifying their business as non-specified category mentioned at Sl.No.23 of the Sixth Schedule of KVAT Act. Further grievance of the petitioners is that though petitioners have requested respondent No.3 to furnish them work sheet, so as to enable them to file their detail reply along with necessary documents, it was not furnished to them and reply submitted by the petitioners has not been properly considered by respondent No.3 before passing the Assessment O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Commercial Tax at Belgavi, has preferred this writ petition and therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Secondly, he contends that there is no procedure under the K-VAT Act to furnish work sheet to the petitioners before passing the Assessment Order. Thirdly, he submits that the petitioners still have to pay 1 Crore 10 Lakhs as per the Assessment Order passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-F and in the event of this Court coming to a conclusion that the Assessment Order passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-F needs to be reconsidered, petitioners may be directed to furnish a bank guarantee for the difference of tax levied under Annexure-F till reconsideration of the matter by respondent No.3. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court Government Pleader the Assessing Authority before passing the Assessment Order at Annexure-F had furnished all the particulars in detail while issuing notice to the petitioners as per Annexure-D. 10. As could be seen from the notice Annexure- D it was issued in form No.275 of Section 39 (1) of the K-VAT Act, 2003 R/w Section 36 and 72 of the Act for the year 2014-15, on 11.07.2016 by one Assessing Authority (officer) asking the petitioners' firm to produce Books of accounts for verification and the Assessment Order at Annexure-F was passed by another Assessing Authority (officer) who was due to retire from service immediately after passing of the impugned Assessment Order. Further petitioners have got the registered office of their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
