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 No.48037/2019 (T – RES) BETWEEN:
M/s LAKSHMI METALLURGY LTD., #118, ALLOY HOUSE, SERVICE ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU-560086 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI V.BABU …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.R.SRINIVASAN, ADV.) AND:
1 . THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES COMMERCIAL TAX BUILDING, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560006.
2 . JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES DIVISION-6, OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAXES, 3RD FLOOR, KIADB BUILDING, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560058.
3 . DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT)-6.3, DGSTO-6, 3RD FLOOR, KIADB BUILDING PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.03.2019 AT ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY THE R-3 HEREIN.
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 respondents.
2. The petitioner has challenged the endorsement dated 21.03.2019 at Annexure-C issued by the respondent No.3 rejecting the rectification application filed by the petitioner under Section 69A of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [‘Act’ for short] seeking for rectification of the re-assessment order passed under Section 39[1], 36 and 72[2] of the Act relating to the tax period April 2013 to March 2014.
3. As could be seen, the respondent-Authority has given a categorical finding that no mistake apparent on the record is made out calling for rectification of the order as sought for. In view of the finding of the respondent-Authority as aforesaid and the scope of rectification being limited, it cannot be held that the matter requires re-consideration by the respondent No.3, as sought for.
Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Act. If such an appeal is preferred within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered on merits, without objecting to the aspect of limitation.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.