IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.27815/2018 (T – RES) BETWEEN:
M/s DS AND JAKS CONSTRUCTIONS (A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932) SY.NO.65/3, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 100 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI D.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS ... PETITIONER [BY SRI DALIYA SINGH, ADV. FOR SRI K.G.KAMATH, ADV.] AND:
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT) 4.7, DVO-4, "A BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, VANIJYA TERIGE KARYALAYA-II NEAR NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE, VIVEKNAGAR, KORMANGALA BANGALORE-560047 …RESPONDENT [BY SRI T.V.VEDAMURTHY, AGA.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE INPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 24.05.2018 ISSUED PROCEEDINGS [ANNEXURE-A] BY THE RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE IMPUGNED RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.04.2018 UNDER SECTION 39[1] OF THE KAVT ACT, 2003 [ANNEXURE-B] PASSED IN PROCEEDINGS BY THE RESPONDENT HOLDING THE SAME AS ONE HAVING BEEN PASSED FLOUTING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the endorsement dated 24.05.2018 issued by the respondent rejecting the application seeking rectification of the impugned re- assessment order 20.04.2018, primarily on the ground that the said order has been passed flouting the principles of natural justice.
2. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘KVAT Act, 2003’ for short), during the tax periods April 2015 to March 2016, was subjected to reassessment proceedings and an order under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 was passed, subsequent to which the application was filed by the petitioner – assessee seeking rectification of the said order of reassessment. The same has been rejected by the endorsement impugned herein.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order/endorsement impugned is hit by the principles of natural justice since no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. On this ground alone, the order/endorsement impugned herein deserves to be set aside.
4. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the revenue justifying the impugned endorsement would submit that all the contentions raised by the assessee – petitioner in the rectification application filed under Section 69 of the KVAT Act, 2003 has been addressed to and hence the grievance of the petitioner of not providing an opportunity of hearing would not merit any consideration.
5. It is not in dispute that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner – assessee while taking a decision on the application for rectification filed under Section 69 of the KVAT Act, 2003 by the petitioner. It is very well settled law that it is mandatory on the part of the quasi-judicial authorities to provide an opportunity of hearing before passing the order and to assign the reasons for arriving at a decision. The basic requirements of law not been complied with, the endorsement impugned cannot be sustained.
6. On this ground alone, the writ petition is allowed. The endorsement impugned dated 24.05.2018 is set aside and the proceedings are remanded to the file of the respondent to reconsider the rectification application after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The petitioner shall appear before the respondent on 29.04.2019 without expecting any notice. The respondent shall provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall decide the matter on merits in accordance with law in an expedite manner, in any event, not later than four weeks from thereon.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR