IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.88/2019 (T – RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. SOUTHERN MACHINE TOOLS No.221, 10TH CROSS LAKSHMINARAYANAPURAM BANGALORE-560021.
REP. BY ITS PROP:
SUNDERMURTHY AGED 65 YEARS. ... PETITIONER [BY SRI K.M.SHIVAYOGISWAMY, ADV.] AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [AUDIT] 1.3, VAT DIVISION-1 5TH FLOOR, TTMC, BMTC BUS STAND YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE-560047. …RESPONDENT [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 IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 12.03.2018 AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND NOTICE DATED 12.03.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KVAT ACT IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD 2011-12 IN THE PETITIONER’S CASE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the re-assessment order dated 12.03.2018 and the consequential demand notice passed by the respondent under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ['Act' for short] relating to the Assessment Period 2011-12, inter alia seeking a direction to the respondent - authority not to proceed with the recovery proceedings.
2. The petitioner is a Proprietorship concern, engaged in the manufacturing of Machinery tools and registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Act. It is the contention of the petitioner that no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner, before passing the re-assessment order impugned herein.
3. As could be seen from the material available on record, it is apparent that the petitioner was duly served with the notice by Muddam on 20.11.2017. As there was no response, an endorsement dated 22.02.2018 was issued and the same was duly served on the assessee by Muddam on 23.02.2018. Despite the same, the petitioner has not responded to the proposition notice dated 10.10.2017. Hence, it cannot be held that no reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner, before passing of the re-assessment order on 12.03.2018.
4. A complete mechanism is provided under the Act to challenge the re-assessment order. Even regarding the stay of recovery proceedings, the petitioner is entitled to move before the appellate authority for the interim relief of stay in accordance with law. In such circumstances, invoking writ jurisdiction circumventing alternative statutory remedy provided under the Act cannot be countenanced.
Hence, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal before the appellate authority in accordance with law and is ordered accordingly.
If such an appeal is filed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the same shall be considered by the appellate authority in accordance with law on merits of the case, without objecting to the aspect of limitation.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.