IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.7048 – 7059/2019 (T – RES) BETWEEN:
M/s THOGARI HANKAL ESTATE PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR J.M. NANDAN GOWDA AGED 38 YEARS No.95, 3RD MAIN, FIRST FLOOR, VYALIKAVAL, BANGALORE – 560003 ... PETITIONER [BY SMT.MRINALINI R., ADV. FOR SRI R.RAMA MURTHY, ADV.] AND:
THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT) 1.1, DVO 1, TTMC BUILDING, BMTC BUS STAND YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE – 560022 …RESPONDENT [BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF RE-ASSESSMENT DATED 21.11.2017 MADE UNDER SECTION 39(1) R/W SECTIONS 36(2) AND 72(2) OF THE KVAT ACT (ANNEXURE-D) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to accept notice for the respondent.
The petitioner has challenged the order of reassessment dated 21.11.2017 made under Section 39(1) read with Section 26(2) and 72(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (‘Act’ for short).
2. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Act. For the assessment year 2011- 12, the assessments were concluded on 21.11.2017 under Section 39(1) of the Act and recovery notices are issued by the respondent. Being aggrieved by the assessment order and demand notice issued by the respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Primarily, the writ petitions are not maintainable since the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative and efficacious remedy of statutory appeal available under the Act. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no notice was served by the respondent before concluding the assessment but the same cannot be accepted for the reason that the assessment order discloses that proposition notice was served through RPAD and the petitioner has not responded to the same.
4. However, considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to avail the appeal remedy subject to the petitioner filing an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. If such an appeal is filed, the same shall be considered by the Appellate Authority on merits in accordance with law without objecting to the aspect of limitation.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE PMR