IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.13362 & 14056/2019 (T – RES) BETWEEN:
M/s ARYAN BUILD ESTATES PVT. LTD., SY.NO.12/7, BBMP NO.1769/12/7, THANISANDRA VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560077 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, H.M.PRASANNAKUMAR AGED 40 YEARS ... PETITIONER [BY SRI K.M.SHIVAYOGISWAMY, ADV.] AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES KARNATAKA VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560009 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT 5.3) ROOM NO.404, 4TH FLOOR-BLOCK, NEAR NATIONAL GAMES, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560047 …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES DATED 07.12.2009 IN SUB PARAGRAPH [2] [i], [ii], AND [iii] AND [A] [B] AND [C] OF PARAGRAPH 2 THEREIN ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to accept notice for the respondents.
The petitioner has challenged the proposition notice issued by the respondent No.3 dated 22.02.2019 relating to the tax periods 2013-14 and 2014-15.
2. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in execution of civil works contract and registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘KVAT Act’, for short) during the relevant period.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the reassessment proceedings initiated by the prescribed authority under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act by issuing the proposition notice proposing to levy tax on works contract receipts in respect of consideration received/receivable towards transfer of undivided share of rights, title and interest in the land from the buyers of the flats. These writ petitions are filed challenging the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as well as the proposition notice issued by the prescribed authority on various grounds.
4. It is ex-facie apparent that the writ petitions are premature. The petitioner has rushed to this Court sans filing the reply/objections to the proposition notice. It is also pointed out by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that in identical matters, this Court while entertaining the writ petition filed by the similar assessees on identical issue has granted an interim order of stay subject to deposit of 50% of the tax demanded. The petitioner seeking for stay of the proposition notice at the threshold would be discriminatory qua other similar assessees who are before this Court.
5. There is considerable force in the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Viewed from any angle, no ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the proposition notice at this stage.
6. Hence, these writ petitions stand dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file objections/reply within a period of two weeks from today. The prescribed authority shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in an expedite manner. Ordered accordingly.
PMR Sd/- JUDGE