Court dismisses Writ Appeal challenging tax assessment jurisdiction under KVAT Act

The Writ Appeal was dismissed as the Court held that the first respondent, authorized by the Commissioner, had the jurisdiction to issue an escaped assessment under Section 25 of the KVAT Act. The appellant's challenge against the Audit Officer's authority was rejected, emphasizing that authorized officers could perform Assessing Officer functions to ensure tax collection. The appellant was barred from further appeal due to conditions set during the Writ Appeal admission.

---

---

Issues involved: Jurisdiction of Audit Officer to issue escaped assessment under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, 2003.

Summary:
The Writ Appeal was filed challenging the judgment of the Single Judge who declined to entertain the writ petition due to the availability of an alternate statutory appeal. The appeal was admitted based on the contention that the challenge is only against the jurisdiction of the Audit Officer to issue escaped assessment under Section 25 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The appellant did not wish to challenge the order on merits or other grounds. The first respondent issued a notice under Section 24 of the KVAT Act for best judgment assessment for the year 2005-2006. The appellant argued that the assessment under Section 24 was not permissible as the time limit for such assessment had passed. Subsequently, the first respondent issued an order under Section 25 authorizing an Assessing Officer to make a turnover escaping assessment up to five years from the relevant year. The appellant contended that the Audit Officer did not have the authority to make assessments under Section 25, which is the jurisdiction of a regular Assessing Officer. However, the Government Pleader argued that any officer authorized by the Commissioner under Section 2(v) could perform the functions of an Assessing Officer. The Court held that the first respondent, being authorized by the Commissioner, could make a turnover escaping assessment under Section 25. The purpose of conferring concurrent jurisdiction on different officers is to ensure tax collection if the regular officer fails. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent was within his powers and could not be challenged for lack of jurisdiction. The Writ Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was no longer allowed to file an appeal against the revised order due to a condition imposed during the admission of the Writ Appeal.

---