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.24145/2018 (T – EYT) BETWEEN:
M/s PAN PARAG INDIA LTD., REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, SRI ANIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SURVEY NO.120/4, ALUR VILLAGE POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH-562162. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI K.HEMA KUMAR, ADV. FOR SRI R.V.PRASAD, ADV.] AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2 . THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES IN KARNATAKA, VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA, 1ST MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560009.
3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT)-6.4, D.V.O-6, 3RD FLOOR, KIADB BUILDING, 14TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, PEENYA, BENGALURU-560058. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA.] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 05.04.2018 BEARING CAS No.247467396 AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL NOTICE OF DEMAND DATED 16.04.2018 PASSED BY R-3 UNDER SECTION 5(4) OF THE ACT AT ANNEXURES-C AND D PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013.
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 assailed the order of assessment dated 05.04.2018 and the consequential notice of demand dated 16.04.2018 passed by respondent No.3 under Section 5(4) of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (‘Act’ for short) relating to the assessment year 2012-13.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order of assessment impugned herein is barred by limitation. Hence, the writ petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in terms of Section 5(6) of the Act applicable to the relevant assessment year, no assessment under the said Section ought to have been made after a period of three years from the date on which the returns under Section 5 of the Act has been submitted by a dealer. It is submitted that returns were filed by the petitioner on 19.09.2013 relating to the assessment year in question, whereas assessments were concluded on 05.04.2018, as such the said assessment is barred by limitation. Learned counsel also placed reliance on Rule 8 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Rules, 1979.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the revenue has filed the statement of objections. It is submitted that neither the ‘annual return’ in Form – 5 nor ‘annual statement’ in Form VAT – 115 has been submitted by the petitioner to take shelter under Section 5(6) of the Act as contended.
4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel as aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the disputed facts relating to the filing/non-filing of the ‘annual returns’ in Form – 5 or in Form VAT - 115 cannot be adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction. These factual aspects have to be considered and adjudicated by the statutory Appellate Authority contemplated under the Act.
5. Hence, without going into the merits or demerits of the case, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. If such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority on merits in accordance with law without objecting to the period of limitation.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR