1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 201"0.» BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. I_fII'1'I:(.2HI'GERI M' WRIT PETITION NOS.33194~2;2§O:OF;2Q1-IQ J BETWEEN : M/S.SENTHURAN CONSTRUCIIQNS Co.; . No.606, 80 FT. ROAD _ 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA ' BANGALORE-560095. _ I REPRESENTED BY Us PROPRIETOR-«._ SR1 J.CHANDRASHEKAR''=-f '' * " AGED AEoUT.45._Y_EARs g 4. V: S/O LATE _ jg ...PETmoNER 'as; " = My iflv _ ADV. ,) 1. V _ DEPUTY 'CQMM;_SSiONER OF I COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT--4 1) VAT DAIV1sION:0'4, VTK--2 80..FI."RoAD, KORAMANGALA " ' C.EAN'G'1-u_.0RE. 2; ' THESTATE OF KAJRNATAKA EYES SECRETARY ~~DE;PARTMENT OF FINANCE .. VIDHANA SOUDHA " BANGALORE560 001. ...RESPONDEN'IS (BY:SRI K.M.SI"tIIVAYOGISV\7AMY, HCGP] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE NOTICES BEARING NOSVAT/2010-11 EVEN DATED 14.9.2010 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE VAT ACT READ WITH RULE 173 OF THE VAT RULES 2 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE--B AND
ANNEXUREB1 FOR ASSESSMENT PERIOD 2006-07 VIBE
ANNEXURE–C AND ANNEXURE-C1 FOR ASSESSMENT
PERIOD 2007-08 AND VIDE ANNEXURE-D
ANNEXURE–1:)1 FOR ASSESSMENT PERIOD _;2QQ8’~.O9
RESPECTIVELY AS WITHOUT OF’ LAW AND 4′ » _
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PT§EL1MiN;AE§* “‘
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THEFQOLLOWiNC~_:v ” A
Sri K.M.ShivayogiSwarr15r,. the ‘ -learned; . ”
Pleader is directed to take not_icc:for_vthe.respondents.
2. The petitiounerhas challenge to the
first responderitiflsqlotfiices jeinder Section 34 of the
Karnataka7iZ::11ue:ffAdd*ed’-tI’a3i_”1*1ct, 2003 (‘KVAT’ Act for
short)V’c.a1:lingV the documents, information,
etc. as specified. in VAT¥’Zi85 form.
the learned counsel for the
petitnioneérj.sulbniits that the first respondent is not
juSt’ifiedpV.in”.V demanding the submission of papers in a
pa1*ticuiar form. She Submits that the petitioner has
‘ maintained the accounts books in a manner prescribed
‘4 the KVAT Act and the Rules framed thereunder. She
would therefore contend that the impugned notices are
vm’thout the authority of law.
fififi.
4. Sri K.M.Shivayogiswamy, the learned
Government Pleader appearing on behalf
respondents submits that the Assessing
sought re–writing of the accounts »book_s such._’_j_ He if
submits that the petitioflfiix “‘lc1air;ied_ _
exemptions and therefore,'”certain._ docurrievnts if and”
information are sought. resplondeiivt only to
examine the petitioners g _
5. is only
the incumbent on the
petitioners requisite information and
documen’ts: _ ” has any difficulty in
furnishing any-r.infoi:rnation or documents, the same
‘ could–v_4be:al51’0_ught to the notice of the Assessing
Aii’thority–Irj’;_ for the Assessing Authority to decide as
to Whether to accept the explanation or not to accept
the”~«_.explanation. If the final reassessment order is
l adverse to the interests of the petitioner, it can always
challenge the same before the appropriate forum by
taking the ground with reference to the issuance of the
33%’.
4
notices, but no challenge can lie to the very and___mere
issuance of notices.
6. The Apex Court in the case –.
ENGINEER, BIHAR STATE Eoirsrue ‘ ‘V
RAMESH KUMAR SINGHJAND lines.
(1996) 1 sec 327 has iéiiew that
the premature petition._..é;gaii1stli_> cause notice is
not to be entertainedip is totally not
without to file the
objections of the matter.
V1 it is to refer to paragraph–5 of
the Apex jiidginent in the case of SPECIAL
AN15 ”” ‘ANOTHER v. MOHD. GHULAM
-..(Z’iVrI»£_(u)V’A(3S:1’t;.s.iL\i:l§’.1~~AN0THER. reported in AIR 2004 so
1467. .:se1ne is extracted hereinbeIow:–
“5. This Court in a large number of cases
it has deprecated the practice of the High Courts
entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of
the show cause notices stalling enquiries as
proposed and retarding investigative process to
find actual facts with the participation and in the
presence of the parties. Unless, the High Court is
flfiii
5
satisfied that the show cause notice was totally
non est in the eye of law for absolute want
jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate’
facts, writ petitions should not be entertaii1ect:j”o’r’* l”
the mere asking and as a matter of
the writ petitioner should tnoarialfity ..be_
respond to the show causeb”‘not.iclelland
stands highlighted in the ‘writ petition.’
8. In the result, ~petitio:no–.arr; rejected
with a direction tout” produce the
documents as sought by
the first petitioner has any bonafide
is always open to the
petitioner ‘- to ‘ explanation to the first
responclenati is .7for.”-the first respondent to consider the
l V. terlaloiiity otheryyise of the explanation to be offered
for not furnishing the information in
the ._so1,;gh-t «ftorrn.
1 Further, the liberty is also reserved to the
it ‘pleititioner to raise a challenge with regard to the
~~issuance of the impugned notices, if the petitioner has
553%’.
6
to file an appeai in the event of the final reassessment
order going adverse to the interests of the petitiOn,_er.,»_t’~V.VV
10. N0 order as to costs.
VGR ‘