High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Classic Developers vs The Deputy Commissioner Of … on 20 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M/S Classic Developers vs The Deputy Commissioner Of … on 20 April, 2009
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT 01:' KARNATAKA, BA_I§:f'G1'§L§). F§E A'  %
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF' Ai?RI!;._: ._ 3

BEFORE

THE HUMBLE MR. JLISHCE D.v..Sr§YLEN.U*:§Aj'§{UN;A§e 

WRIT PETITION Nos. 1i2é§4:.53 0F'~2€)'0£}-:(rl;w§EVé;)
BETWEEN:  V' 'V  "

1 M13 CLASSIC DEvEi;...0PE§es' _  
REP. BY ITS JOiNT"G=E1f€ERAL_M,A_NAGER
Accourytfzg, SR; €Z_%1R:S.H GUP.i'£s,_ 
AGED 34:3 YE;AES., MAN_TR_1..Hf}USE,"
NO.4 '£TIfA'L"--.MAL1;AYAvF2OAD, A
BANGA.wR::3;1   " 

(By sxi"'SUREi~eDE§é'ANA3fH;fiav. FOR
M/s VASAN %Ass*~rs;';.  .. 

AN{}:;  "

   if-JPUTY COMMESSIONER OF

"  _C;'o1v:MERe;AL TAXES
 AcvamgaER.c:AL TAAXES AUBIT 10,
 LDU'13j_.¥ViSION, BANGLAORE 20.

 2   I.3"EPUTY COMMISSECJNER me'

'A T CQMMERCIAL TAXES
'  (ENFORCEMENT)-ii

V  _fSO{i'I'H ZONE, BANGALORE 47

  1'  H3 THE COMMISSONER 0;? COMMERCIAL TAXES

IN KARNATKA, VINAJIYA THERIGE KARYALAYA
131' MAIN, GANDHINAGAR,
BANGALORE 9

 PETITIONER.



4 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPBY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDI-"IA BANGALORE)' »
BANGALORE 1  

.. ."1'~:§;As:>o N'1§E-a£T*$,
(By Sri K.M. SHEVAYOGISWAMY,._:Ff{3GP)V. V V  V '

THESE w.Ps. FILED.UND.E'R--Ai?TICLES 22:3 AND 22'? OF.
THE CONSTITUTION, PRA_Y"ING_TQ- QU~ASH»'I'_HE QRDER OF RE»
ASESSMENT AND THE' {30flS'E:QUEN"'TIA3, NOTICES 014'
DEMAND ISSUED IN F(.),R'r»§., "\IAT--1'3€¥, ".~4\,f£-E; UT. 20.2.2009
PASSED BY THE:_{;.>'r¢..D R§ESPO*ND_E'bE?T._UNf?«ER SECTION 39 OF'
THE ACT, PE§éTA;11>e::~1c§--. TQ""TBE_ "PERIODS COMMENCING
FROM APRIL.,~2'eQ5~«..T{_) 'T.4j;§_;2'<::H,'-."2006_{ANNExURs»(:, 3:. 1) TO
D-9). '   " »    '

T}:£%Es§:"'i5§:fr1TiéN:§"~V.§:<3M:T§i€§ ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING; TH1s.DATT;.TTHE'TcQ2Im* MADE THE FOLLOWING:

 T  E R

 §)€¥iitV1;yGI1SV}})_!_{iI} assessee who is assessable to fax

 *._V;1ra§derVt.h§_:'E{aTiia£aka Value Added Tax Act, 2603.

I2. Fetifiofier is aggrieved by the reassessment orders

   finder section 39 of the Kamataka Value Adam}

  Act for the period from 1.4.2005 its 31.3.2006 for each

V   fof the mcrnth, capy of the order is produced as Annexure-C,

dated 20.1.2009 ané consequential demand notice

Amwxures-'Q to D9.

VT



3. Submission of Mr. Szzrendrarmth,  'A 
appearing for the petitioner is that i_n....=re_spec:'€  "
fled by the petitioner for the reievent 
auEhez'it.y had, while not  tee   L'
assessment order in terme of  'efeeeeeien 38(1)
ef the Act for the yeaf'  u  the orders at
Annexures B tev     petitioner had

been issued   nQfie.e_  reopen the conciucled

assessmer1€"byV.Aié3sue'{inf  ufider section 39(1) of the Act
ané t:he.t "'1:ee._ bjyfl Vreepee11§§e«rii:¢_2 . who is net the assessing

atltherity, that  the serious objections flied

'E237, the.:5f3e:i£:iie135er, 'ei'1e"'se{:011d respondeni has concluded by

  1fje«eompL1tir1g the liability of the petitioner

'   for  as per the order at Annexure«C and has

.. _§$S1}€d th.e 3~e11eeqz1eI1ti.a1 demand notices, that the order

 {fem being bad on merits as the premise on which

 '11' ~€11e__eeeend respondent has re-determined the iiabiiity is a

VA jfiestulete which is not free from doubt and even as

indicated by the Supreme Ceurt in the ease of Larsen 83

M

Teubro Limited amd another vs. State of Kamataka,
reported in (2008) 1′? VST 468 (SC), but more finybrtantiy
the seeend respondent lacks juzisdicfion to ”
orcier as he is not the assessing
being one iacking in jurisdiction 7
the 1’€Sp0i”1d6i’ltS be éi1″ecf;.-zzdfl 1

accordance xvith law.

4. Sefagee. 2;1*gi1:ne:i{e”‘ef lack of guzisdietien is
concerned,’ ifp1*deeeds_.’e~:t1’V.:11e instant the re-assessment

order’ _1;nde£”‘-.Seetii(j::1 .3§(§f) of the Act can be passed by .21

., hp}:-ee:r:.1″‘i’r}__<1:<;i authdfii§"'Whe has reason to believe that any

seiefrxe. etc; is not correct or groper; that unless

t1}e.._44{30i1j::n£i'§;si0ner has passed orders eonfeming Such

3"-w___'j:.1ris£iitii<i_§§«I1 fer re«as$essment under sectian 39 of the Act

A first respondent as we}; as the eeeend respondent,

3;}:f<.ey eexmet pass eréers cf reassessment; that in the

" V present case, respendents 1 and 2 are not the regfuiar

assessing authorfiies; that in spite of this, the first

we

*9. 'Thcrefom, it is maria cigar £1231; it is 'A ~

pfiitiener to raise all coI2te11t';oI1:;….b§:I'<)re_*' C " '

authority including the question of

'I'hese writ petiticms ai*$v_""£3pt ei1€§:z*:'a 311' 2d "are " '

disniissed

vge