M/S Bhukhanvala Tools (Pvt ) Ltd vs Secretaty To Govt on 19 February, 2010

 

-pa'  .i\5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAN GALQRE

DATED THIS THE 19% DAY 05* F.=:B12UAm(,_ ?{(reiBBea:a R

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM-MOH.Ai_\;T"  

WRIT PETITION N0.36368-7&5'a()i5.A_2OO9"(i'4}£ST}--:T'~..any "

BETWEEN:

 

M/s Bhukhanvala Tools [1{'vt.) Ltc1..,.  
No.20}, 60 feet Main Road,'~~._ " ' 
Shankar Nagar, 
Mahalakshmi Layout.
Bangalore --- 560 096

(Rep. By (3.5.   
Branch Manaf.3'{é3z",."--.V   '
Hindu, .. 

Aged abojjf   

[By Sri. A. E;'Safyaha--ray'ajf1 'Aei:ir;) 

A.i§£__1Q.; .

 " I   to G<':VN'£';"'of'V Karnataka

' « ,'Fif1a1'1C'f; Department,
 '  VidAh'a4na,VSQTud«ha,
 "B3I1g3»:I'(;'.1fC"é0o9 under Section 39(1)

of the  the Tax period .1-442006 to
   Commissioner of Commercial
 after issuing notice under Section
 iiagmor  Act, 2003, served on the petitioner
'4  calling forth objections which when filed.

 in/aas"'.cor1sidered and rejected. That order is appealabie

it  Section 62(2) of the KMVAT Act, 2003. Instead of

tag"?



questioning the said order in an appeal, the petitioner

has come rushing to this Court without. exerting" 

remedy of a stattltory appeal.

2. The consequent demand notice  it  

Annexure-"}'3" and the notice in Fo4rm._~'\(AT>3.50%intfier

Rule 57 Annexure--"E", are c'ai}«e_d in'-qtlcstioni1_in._this

petition.

3. The Iearned   contends
that the petitionerii'-isa Viooiéhfiany and the
appeai filed   wig-;,§1'2'-2008 before the
Board foe 3%:   it Reconstru ction was

registered"' as _ /2008 by order dated

24.12.2008

, cuou.id”‘notx’be. informed to the Assessing

date ofwaissessment AnneXure~*’A”. though

the:fact’xofv4registration of the case before the BIFR was

conveyed to petitioner in the letter dated 2442-

.’N”:'”v’.442t§C$%ss_Ar1i*ie§<ure-"G" which was received late. This

__sub,m'is'sion of the learned counsel must stand rejected

Mi