T AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 3:" DAY OF AUGUST 2010 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINcH:G_E:P.,I' 'C: . WRIT PETITION Nos. 23551-235918 BETWEEN: M/S FP SEATING SYSTEM PVT LTD 485/10, 14*" CROSS, AT" PHASE P I A, BANGALORE «-~-- 560 038 . REP.BY SRI PAWAN GAUR _ . S/O SRI KAILASH CHAND GAUR HINDU I %' PETITIONER (BY SRI..A'iSATYA«NA__RAYA-N A,_'ADVOCATE) ' ' ' ' 1'. ' ., . : 1. DY. CONIR. OF ..(AUDIT ~--- 62) VAT DVN6, (RBANGVALORE~55-6.0..--02O) (AA) 2. COMR._OF COMRL. .T_A.xES_, RARNATAKA VTK 1;, I MAIN, GANDHINAGAR - BAN._fGA.LO_RE .7 560 '09T..(.H«O D) STATE Ov.F__'r<.ARNATAKA RE R; BY .EI=NA'NACE~~SECETARY VIDH-AN SOB'DH'A BANG_ALO.R~E_gf..--560 001 RESPONDENTS
” ._:(~E3Y SRI K M SHIVAYOGISWAMY, HCGP)
‘*fT.HESE wR:T PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
I_<_22_7-OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
-.fIM_PUG!\I%ED RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 39(1),
36_,”37VDATED 29.04.2010 FOR THE YEAR 200S~06, ANNEXURE B &
26′.06.2010 FOR THE YEAR 2006~07, 2007-08 & 2008–09 MARKED AS
QANNEXURE C, D & E TOGETHER WITH THE RELEVANT ON IN FORM
‘VAT 180 FOR THE TAX PERIOD 200S–06, 2006–07, 2007-08, 2008-09
2
AND 2009-16 RESPECTIVELY MARKED AS AN ANNEXURES B_.C,D_.E,
WITH LAW IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE LEVY OF INTEREST,
PENALTY AND TAX ON FREIGHT AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRLY. HG THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
QRDER
The petitioner has raised the challenge
assessment orders at Annexures-B, C, {2 .an_cl E d’e.rniand_V K”
notices at Annexures-B1, C1, D1 and Ella’
2. Sri Satyanarayana, the””‘i-{earned c¢unOsei _m}– the
petitioner submits that the erdersyyare niotxspeaking
orders. The respondent No.1 law and also
the clarifications- i’ssviied’:’byVlt»h§–§omrnissioner of Commercial Tax.
His grievance isV”th_at.ith’e._petiti~o_}§er is being fastened with certain
taxes, thot-i:gh_AAi”t is otAh’erw_i_sevexempted from paying it.
Q.;-Sr:Ifiqvlvivishliivayogiswamy, the learned High Court
A’v._?”‘Governm’e_nt ;Piea’d=er has raised the threshold bar to the very
_._,}tiai_ntiaingabil’ityOi’ of these petitions. He submits that if the
aggrieved by the impugned orders/notices, he can
the remedy of fiiing an appeal under Section 62 of the
VTEA”–«TVKa«rnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
REM.
4. Sri Satyanarayana joins the issue with Sri
Shivayogiswamy that to press for stay of impugned order_s.”ihe
has to deposit 50% of the amounts. He requests__Ati§e”Court i-
give a direction to the respondent _N.o..1_ tof’reCo:nsiderg’.i»the
petitioner’s cases and thereby effect the re_c’ti’ficatio’n_:”inhis~,ré{p
assessment orders.
5. These petitions are ‘:ciispos’ed’_of’..r_ie’se..rying theflxliberty to
the petitioner either to file the a’fpApea’i’}invc–ikfinfgj_~$ection 62 of the
said Act or to seek”re.ctifii:ation.~~’:of i~re:a7ssessment orders
invoking Section
6. If:V__th»:-“:’ “the appeals/petitions for
rectification, the isarh’e_.’4’sha!i”;be considered examining the
A’
applicatio,n§Lo:. thQ”…,,d:ecisions being relied upon by Sri
Satyan airaiya g A _ p « ..,. «
7. ‘:.\_io orcieriasfwto costs.
. sa/5
{Edge