IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.50079/2019 (T – RES) BETWEEN:
SMT. H. LAKSHMI W/O HANUMAIAH AGED 40 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S Sri. RAJARAJESWARI TRADERS HALLI MANE, SANTHEMAVATTUR, KASABA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK.
... PETITIONER [BY SRI. K.M. SHIVAYOGISWAMY, ADV.] AND:
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT) – 1, VANIJYA TERIGE SANKEERNA SIDDRAMESHWARA EXTENSION TUMAKURU-572103 …RESPONDENT [BY SRI. T.K. VEDAMURTHY, AGA] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMUGNED EX-PARTE REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.3.2018 AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND NOTICES DATED 28.3.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KVAT ACT IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT PERIODS 2012-13 IN THE PETITIONERS CASE VIDE ANNEXURE- C AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent.
The petitioner has challenged the ex-parte re- assessment order dated 28.03.2018 and consequential demand notice passed by the respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘KVAT Act’ for short) relating to the tax periods, April 2012 to March 2013.
2. The petitioner, registered dealer under the provisions of the KVAT Act has been subjected to re- assessment under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act by the respondent – authority relating to the tax periods in question. It is evident from the re-assessment order dated 28.03.2018 impugned, that the assessee was given an opportunity to file objections, if any, in writing to the proposals dated 15.03.2018 within three days from the date of receipt of the notice. The above proposition notice was duly served on the dealer on 22.03.2018 and the dealer has not furnished the Books of Accounts for verification, re-assessment order has been passed on 28.03.2018.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that indeed Books of Accounts were submitted by the petitioner on 24.03.2018, but the same has not been considered and no reasonable opportunity has been provided to the petitioner to comply with the proposition notice. The ex-parte order of re-assessment made in a hasty manner calls for interference by this Court.
4. An endeavor has been made by the learned Additional Government Advocate to justify the impugned order.
5. As could be seen from the impugned re- assessment order, it is manifestly clear that no reasonable opportunity has been provided to the petitioner to meet the proposals made in the proposition notice. It is trite that any opportunity given by the Assessing Authority should not be an empty formality. Reasonable opportunity has to be provided to enable the assessee to putforth the explanation/reply to the proposition notice. The case on hand certainly could not satisfy the said test and is hit by the principles of natural justice. On this ground alone, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.
6. Hence, the order impugned dated 28.03.2018 at Annexure – C is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent – Authority to re- consider the same. The petitioner shall submit reply/objections to the proposition notice within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent – Authority on 06.11.2019 without waiting for any notice. The respondent – Authority after hearing the petitioner shall conclude the re-assessment proceedings in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR