1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI W.P.No.26509/2017(T-RES) BETWEEN M/S.S.L.V. PROJECTS PVT. LTD. NO.141, KRISHNA ARCADE, NEAR ROYAL CONCORDE SCHOOL BANASWADI, OUTER RING ROAD KALYANA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043 REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MURALI NAIDU (BY SRI. MALLAHAR RAO K. ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, VANIJYA TEREGE, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (AUDIT-5.6) DVO-5, BENGALURU-560 047 ...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 ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.11.2015 PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION) ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLY. HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Mr. Mallahar Rao K. Adv. for Petitioner.
Mr. T.K.Vedamurthy, AGA for Respondents.
The petitioner-assessee M/s. S.L.V. Projects Private Limited, a Builder, carrying out the execution of civil works is aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Authority under the provisions of Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003 (for short ‘the KVAT Act’) rejecting its Rectification application filed on 24.05.2017 seeking rectification of the Assessment order passed under Section 39(1)(a) R/w 36(1) and 72(2) of the KVAT Act on 30.11.2015, for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
2. Mr.Mallahar Rao K., learned counsel for the petitioner urged before this Court that since the proposition notice was not issued to the Assessee, therefore he sought a Rectification of this apparent mistake from the 2nd respondent-Assessing Authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit-5.6), DVO-5, Bengaluru, which was however rejected by the impugned Endorsement (Annexure-C) dated 26.05.2017. Hence, the present petition was filed before this Court on 15.06.2017 on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice by the respondent-Assessing Authority.
3. Mr.T.K.Vedamurthy, learned AGA appearing for the respondents, however, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition in view of availability of alternate remedy under Section 62 of the KVAT Act, which entitles the assessee to challenge any order by which he is aggrieved if it is passed by the Authority subordinate to such Appellate Authority namely the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). He submitted that even the rejection of Rectification application by the impugned Endorsement (Annexure-C) dated 26.05.2017 would be appealable before the said Authority under Section 62 of the KVAT Act.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that in view of the availability of the effective alternate remedy to the assessee under Section 62 of the KVAT Act, the present petition is not maintainable and the assessee is relegated to the remedies under the KVAT Act, 2003 against the impugned Endorsement rejecting his Rectification application. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner-assessee within a period of 30 days from today, the same shall be entertained without raising any objection of bar of limitation against the assessee but, however, subject to the assessee satisfying the other conditions for maintaining such appeal before the Appellate Authority.
Sd/- JUDGE TL Sl.No.26