TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Karnataka High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions on KVAT Act Reassessment, Emphasizes Alternative Remedies</h1> <h3>M/s. S.K. Sales Agencies Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes</h3> M/s. S.K. Sales Agencies Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - TMI Issues:Challenge to reassessment order under Section 39(1) of KVAT Act, 2003 for the period 2011-2012 due to alleged breach of principles of natural justice.Analysis:The petitioner, M/s.S.K.Sales Agencies, challenged the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 for the period 2011-2012. The petitioner contended a breach of principles of natural justice, arguing that the Assessing Authority did not grant additional time despite a request made due to the absence of the company's Auditor, who was abroad. The petitioner sought one month to respond to the queries but the order was passed on 17.6.2017 without granting the requested time. The petitioner argued that this breach of natural justice rendered the reassessment order invalid.The learned counsel for the petitioner raised concerns about the breach of natural justice, highlighting that the Assessing Authority did not grant the requested time for response, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. However, the Additional Government Advocate representing the Commercial Taxes Department opposed the petitioner's submissions, arguing against the validity of the petitioner's claims.The Court found that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available under Section 62 of the KVAT Act, making the present writ petitions not maintainable. The Court also observed that the petitioner's claim of breach of natural justice was not sustainable. The petitioner had requested an extended period without providing evidence that it was impossible to respond within the stipulated time. The Court noted that the petitioner could have submitted objections with relevant evidence before the order date but failed to do so. The Court emphasized that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be invoked merely based on allegations of natural justice breaches.The Court highlighted the availability of two-tier appeal remedies under the KVAT Act, allowing the petitioner to present relevant evidence before the Appellate Authorities. The Court concluded that the petitioner had no grounds to invoke the writ jurisdiction under the circumstances. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, advising the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks without facing objections regarding the limitation period, subject to other appeal conditions being met.In summary, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petitions challenging the reassessment order under the KVAT Act, 2003, emphasizing the availability of alternative remedies and the importance of providing evidence to support claims of natural justice breaches.
TaxTMI 