9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Sections 31(4) and 74(4) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (Hereinafter referred to as 'KVAT Act, 2003' for short) are not attracted to Form VAT-240 filed by the petitioner for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14. Petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.2 not to insist for electronic computer statement as per Circular bearing No. 43/2011-12, dated 31.12.2011 marked at Annexures B and C. 2. The petitioner claims that the VAT - 100 returns for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 have been filed in time, manually. Petitioner claims that 31.12.2013 was the last date to file Form No. 240 for the year 2012-13 and same was filed on 26-12-2013. And 31.12.2014 was the last date to file Form No. 240 for the year 2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 31.12.2014 for the year 2013-14, both forms have been filed in time and there cannot be any penalty. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that under Section 33 of the KVAT Act, 2003, every dealer is required to keep and maintain records referred to in Section 31. He would also refer to Section 34 of KVAT Act, 2003 and would contend that the authority under the KVAT Act, 2003 is enabled to issue notice to the person to provide such information including a return or any other document within the stipulated period. Referring to these provisions, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that having noticed that the petitioner has not filed the VAT Forms as required under law, the notice was issued to the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Form 240 submitted manually. Annexure D is said to be the VAT 240 Form for the year 2012-13 said to have been filed on 26.12.2013 and Annexure E is the VAT 240 Form for the year 2013-14 said to have been filed on 26.12.2014. This petition is filed in the year 2016. Till today, statements of objections have not been filed by the respondents. As already noticed, statement of objections are not filed disputing the authenticity of these documents. Respondents have not produced Form 240 said to have been filed in the year 2015 as alleged by the respondents. Hence, this Court is of the view that Form 240 vide Annexures D and E have been filed manually by the petitioner as on the date mentioned in the said forms. 12. Now the question is whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Act as they may deem fit for the administration of this Act, and all such officers and persons shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the Government and the Commissioner. 16. On a reading of the aforementioned provision, it is apparent that the Government and the Commissioner have the power to issue such instructions to the officers under the Act to perform such duties. Section 59 does not contemplate that the instructions issued under Section 59 are binding on the dealers. Said provision does not authorize the Government and the Commissioner to issue orders to Tax payers or dealers to issue Form-240 electronically. This being the position, the Court has to consider whether the order passed by the author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
