IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.24334 – 24335/2018 (T – RES) BETWEEN:
M/s BANGALORE TURF CLUB LTD., NO.52, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560007 REP BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY-CUM-CFO SRI PRADEEP S. KUMARI ... PETITIONER [BY SRI ATUL K. ALUR, ADV.] AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY FINANCE SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 2 . THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (KARNATAKA) VTK-1, KALIDAS ROAD GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560047 3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ENFORCEMENT)-1 SOUTH ZONE, 80 Ft. ROAD, VTK-2, B BLOCK, RAJENDRANAGAR, KORAMANGALA, NEAR NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE COMPOUND BENGALURU-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 REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 39(1) OF THE KVAT ACT FOR THE PERIOD 2011-12 AT ANNEXURE-E DATED 30.04.2018, PASSED BY THE R-3 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the reassessment order passed under Section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘Act’ for short) relating to the tax periods 2011-12 and 2012-13 passed by respondent No.3 and the consequent demand notices issued.
2. The petitioner – dealer was registered under the provisions of the Act. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the reassessment orders were passed on 30.04.2018 without considering the reply filed by the petitioner to the proposals made in the proposition notice dated 23.04.2018.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate is not in a position to defend the order impugned on the ground raised by the petitioner inasmuch as the violation of principles of natural justice.
4. It is ex-facie apparent that the orders impugned have been passed sans providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner subsequent to the issuance of the proposition notice. Indeed, the orders impugned are passed without considering the reply dated 30.04.2018. Hence, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the orders impugned at Annexures-E and F as well as the demand notices at Annexures-G and H are set aside remanding the matter to respondent No.3 to redo the reassessment in accordance with law. Petitioner is at liberty to file additional objections if any, by two weeks. Respondent No.3 shall consider the objections/reply filed/to be filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in an expedite manner.
The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR