IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.9976/2019 (T – RES) BETWEEN:
M/s STONEAGE GLOBAL No.62/2, FIRST FLOOR, SHOP No.1, KENGERI HOBLI, KUMBALGODU POST, ANCHEPALYA, BENGALURU - 560074 REP BY Mr. BHARATRAJ SHETTY (Mg. PARTNER, HINDU MAJOR) ... PETITIONER [BY SRI A.SATHYANARAYAN, ADV.] AND:
1. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KARNATAKA, VT K1, 1ST FLOOR, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 09.
2. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ADMIN), VT K 1, 1ST FLOOR, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE – 09.
3. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AUDIT 2.9, DGSTO – 2, No.642, PIONEER PLAZA RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA NEAR GOPALAN ARCHED BANGALORE – 560098 …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 IMPUGNED RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTIONS 39(1), 36 AND 72(2) DATED 14.02.2019, DN FOR THE TAX PERIOD 2014-15 AND THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.02.2019 MARKED AS ANNEXURES – A, B AND D RESPECTIVELY PASSED BY THE III RESPONDENT WITH LIBERTY TO REDO THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the reassessment order passed by respondent No.3 dated 14.02.2019 under Section 39(1), 36 and 72(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 relating to the tax period 2014-15 and the endorsement dated 21.02.2019 at Annexure – D, whereby the request for rectification of the reassessment order has been rejected.
2. The petitioner is the registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘Act’ for short), Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (‘CST Act’) and Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (KTEG Act). The reassessment order was concluded by respondent No.3 by order dated 14.02.2019 under Section 39(1) read with Sections 36 and 72 of the Act and demand was raised accordingly. Pursuant to which the rectification application was filed by the petitioner seeking rectification of the said order and the same came to be rejected by an endorsement dated 21.02.2019. Hence, this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that respondent No.3 is not the prescribed authority under the provisions of the Act. No required assignment note was issued by the Commissioner conferring the powers of reassessment on respondent No.3 relating to the petitioner for the tax period 2014- 15.
4. On the directions issued by this Court, the learned Additional Government Advocate has filed the memo along with the assignment note dated 20.11.2018 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes whereby at Sl.No.262, the powers are conferred on respondent No.3 to assess/reassess the petitioner under the provisions of the VAT Act for the tax periods 2014-
15. In view of the aforesaid assignment note, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner do not survive for consideration.
5. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of M/s. Vaishnavi Coco Products vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in STA Nos.152/2016 & 12- 18/2017 (D.D. 08.11.2017), the Division Bench of this Court has observed that the assignment notes placed on record by the respondent – revenue were not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the same not being expressly issued in favour of any specific officer either by name or by designation, the proposal of the Additional Commissioner was found to be defective and consequently it is held that the reassessment order is without competence. But in the present case, the assignment note is specific and expressly indicates the officer by designation. Hence, the said ruling is not applicable to the facts of the case. No grounds are made out by the petitioner to interfere with the reassessment order as well as the rejection of the rectification order circumventing the alternative remedy of statutory appeal provided under the Act.
6. Hence, the writ petition stands disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Act. If such an appeal is preferred within a period of two weeks from today, 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