IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION NO.15585/2017 AND WRIT PETITION NO.15996/2017 AND WRIT PETITION NOs.15998-16007/2017 (T-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. S.P. FABRICATORS (P) LIMITED (A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 2013) #1 & 1/1, HOSAKERE ROAD BINNY FIELDS, BINNYPET BANGALORE – 560 023 TIN – 29750345550 REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD FINANCE RAJESH BHARDWAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS (BY SRI. K.G. KAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT & RECOVERY) – 2.5 DVO – 2, 6TH FLOOR, “A” BLOCK VANIJYA TERIGE KARYALAYA-II VIVEKNAGAR BANGALORE– 560 047 ... PETITIONER 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS)-2, DVO-2 BMTC BUILDING DOUBLE ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BANGALORE– 560 027 (BY SRI. T.K. VEDAMURTHY, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY RECALLING THE APPEAL ORDER DATED 31.03.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. T.K. Vedamurthy, learned AGA., accepts notice for the respondents.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these cases are being decided at this stage itself.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court with an extremely limited prayer to direct the respondent No.2, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) – II to decide the rectification application dated 08.02.2017 for recalling of order dated 31.03.2016, and to direct the respondent No.1 to decide the other application, dated 22.02.2017, and to pass the necessary orders.
4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘KVAT Act’ for short). An assessment order was passed on 30.03.2015 under the Central Sales Act which imposed a huge tax liability on the petitioner. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2015, it preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals).
By order dated 31.03.2016, the respondent No.2 partly allowed the appeal. But gave unwarranted directions to the 1st respondent to deprive the legitimate benefit of exemption of Sales to SEZ units against Form-I. Following the directions issued by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 issued a demand notice, dated 12.08.2016, after re-computing the turnover and petitioner’s tax liability by levying tax on the exempted inter State Sales effected to SEZ Units. According to the petitioner, even the demand notice was illegal as the petitioner had already submitted F-I against the exempted sales before the respondent No.1.
5. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by both the orders passed by the Appellate Authority dated 31.03.2016, and by notice dated 12.08.2016, it filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in the form of STA No.729/2016.
6. Since respondent No.1 declined to accept Form-I, the petitioner filed a rectification application, dated 08.02.2017, before the respondent No.2 for considering the same, and for giving appropriate directions to respondent No.2 so as to re-computing a turnover of the petitioner.
7. On 22.02.2017, the petitioner filed another rectification application with regard to the demand notice dated 12.08.2016 before the respondent No.1. For the total turnover arrived by respondent No.1 was on the basis of Form VAT 240 submitted by the petitioner which was inclusive of the sales made to SEZ unit and by mistake the 1st respondent had once again estimated the interstate sales to SEZ Unit without declaration forms and subjected the same to turnover to tax twice. But despite the lapse of two months neither of the rectification applications have been decided either by respondent No.1 or by respondent No.2. Therefore, the present petitions are filed before this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.Vedamurthy submits that if directions were to be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to decide the rectification applications, the same shall be decided within a period of one month.
9. Needless to say, once the rectification applications have been filed, the same deserve to be decided as expeditiously as possible. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to decide the petitioner’s rectification applications within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With this direction, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BS