IN was man comer OFKARKATAIKA A15 " V
mmn nus ms 23m :§AY §e4?'_2}¢o9. ' _
THE 1-Iozrnm
mm nomnm
J '$10, ' % 'r-Rm;
M/' s..;?.M_. C.Pi*:2§eci:s (Enéiia_)Ltd. ,
and
Gold Téwer, No".-5{3, II. Figor
R¢sidcncy*RoadV "
Bafigalore 560 925.
Rcfp:.by%sri Nitin
S/o.S:'i.AC11iI!I1ubhaiPaz'ikh
' .A$z;t,AV'1;";e I'r§s1§1cnt. - ....Appe11ant
Sri K.S.Ramab admn, Adv.)
f_I'he"I5eputy Commissioner of
_ Ciommercial Taxes
" Audit» 13, I)VO- 1
Bangalore 560 M9.
2. The Commercial Tax Oflicer
(InteIligenoe)- XI
South Zone, VFK -~ 2 1 2 A_
80 feet Road, Koramangaia ..
Bangalore 560 047. "
3. The Commissioner of _
Commercial Taxes
Karnataka Commercial Taxes; V " " - ._
Building, oandmxfiar A .r
Bangalore 560 009. V 1 .-~«l.,;'.I§es§3ondents
4-«J%r_%:e;By3sri AGA)
Thiaé Wfifit is-.lfil'ed" under Sec.4 of the
KaInata1(a"H_igIiI Act to set aside the order
passed V?/4I'i€:.4}5'{:_l:it:'toI?l N0. 1621}-13/2008 dated
16.12.2008. * ' e
Thia._'5.Vrlt._ coming on for prelimma1y'
hea;-'i _ , Gowda, J. , delivered the fo11oWi11g:-
JUDGMENT
eorrecmess of the order dated 16.12.2008
lL}§¢;:’lIIA’l€ learned Single Judge in WP Nos. 16211-
33/ous, who has dismissed the writ petitions reserving
ll to the petitioner to pursue other remedies as
when required and available in law, is questioned
in this appeal urging various grounds.
W}
2. The learned Single Judge has
para–3 of the impugned order the ” ”
notice issued by the 21*’! respondent[:ur;der A
Karnataka Value Added Tagdagt, cm geupozi the e
appellant/dealer to p:oduqe d13;;gkse» Fofaocounvtdés for the
purpose of regarding
assesisment of {udder conmdering
legal Sr. Counsel on
d
25 Single Judge with regani to
legal’ by the dealer that 2114
‘ __ no jurisdiction to issue the show
has referred to the definition of
in terms of Sec.2(‘.24) of the Act
read” Sec.39 of the Act and held that it does not
such limitation and that Commissioner has
taken away the jurisdiction to act as a
‘prwcr-lbw authority’ in resmt of apmllanvdealer
\N[
from the first respondent and has
jurisdiction on “the second respo1;der1t”‘aI.idv.
without affording an opportt§:e)it§i_’_’ hearIng ‘
appellant and is t11eI*efotfe”*~..yioleiti’te Vof’>v:v’;’5i*i,t1L3ip}es of A
natural justice eaxmot be for that it
is not a right of ant that a particular
ofiicer alone to ‘of the businms
is an “Assessing
at the relevant
pomtoy by the Govexnment or the
Commissioner per statutory provisions of the Act.
Vt Tiiei-e£ore;e the Single Judge has rightly found
no reason for him to interfere with the
iin-pug§1e:1tA.1’~’ntotice. Hence, the rmords and books are
to be produced by the appellant:-dealer for the
A’ of 21”-‘~ respondent to be examined in View of the
-{rower eonferxed upon him under See.39 of the Act. For
the reasons stated supra, we do not find any good
reason to interfere with the order. The order of the
‘N/
Iearned single judge is perfectly legal 4_
appeal is devoid of merit and it.is»v1is.b1e.’_f,o V’ ‘ ; ii
4. Accordingly, the appeaiis ‘g i 3
Sk/ck
voGJ_&sRx’1$&J}i;se oi;
29’S’:E200g’VAAV _
‘ oi: :.?fi:j1i’.BEIKG sperms ‘ro*
” “At the of appeilarxfls counsel, this matter
for ‘being spoken to’ as the Judment
was not signed, we have heard
learned Senior counsel.
‘ A’ ‘ Learned senior counsel, Srisarangan submits
illegality of the impugxed notice was challenged
V’ on the gonna that prescribed authority could
not have issued the same without initiating proceedings
‘M
for reassessment of the turnover tax and.A4’ihezfefoi*efd1ev.
issuance of Show cause notice ‘ ;
endorsement are without
contention, he has of V
this Court in BIDAR…SAHAKdR
LTD vs THE STATE (53 s’rc (KAR) 55)
and U.LAx1ym§1§: v:SHI§i§’§;)Y:V:::ve:fi;S$T;’§§iQIMISSIONER OF
(ILR 2003 KAR 5034).
urged by the learned
..-efctensively dealt with by the
learned his order and we have accepted
V’ ., by the learned Single judge in the
doufeonsidered view, issuance of Show cause
eofice_.- second respondent and impugxed
Aendoisement are within the jurisdiction of the
authority and therefore, the above referred
…_._§udgments on which reliance was placed by learned
senior counsel are misplaced and have no application to
\/
the facts of this case.
4. The ieamed senior counsel
attention to the assessment’ “order 1:.!2e»7
assessing authority in respect of asseseniezit ‘in,
question and to the
cause and contemled . !§h!ess ‘fie-exesessmaxt
proceedings are cause notice
could not contenfion also
must: tiie Show cause notice,
the for calling ‘upon
the the documents mentioned
‘I”r:e;”éfox4e;%'”\ii%e do not find any reason to rcmll
25-5-2009. Hence, the order dictated
intact.
sp/ ck
