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>Dismissal of Writ Petition on KVAT Act Reassessment Order</h1> <h3>M/s. Prosper Jewel Arcade LLP Versus The Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes</h3> The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a re-assessment order under the KVAT Act, 2003 for the tax period 2012-13. It held that the introduction ... Validity of Assessment Order - constitutional validity of Section 174(1) (d) and (e) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - appealable order - Scope of SCN. Held that:- All these questions sought to be raised are only academic and do not really arise in the present case and the amended law and GST regime with effect from 01/07/2017 is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case for the year 2012-13. These questions are therefore left open to be considered in appropriate case. Since the re-assessment order under challenge Annexure C dated 31/03/2018 for the period 2012-13 is clearly appealable before the higher Appellate Authority under Section 62 of the KVAT Act, 2003, the present writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner Assessee Company to avail the remedy by way of an appeal if it so chooses - petition dismissed. Issues Involved:Challenge to re-assessment order under KVAT Act, 2003 for the year 2012-13; Constitutional validity of Section 174(1) (d) and (e) of KGST Act, 2017; Applicability of GST regime to tax period 2012-13.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a jewelry dealer, challenged a re-assessment order dated 31/03/2018 under KVAT Act, 2003, seeking to quash the order raising a demand of &8377; 4,42,72,061. The petitioner's application for rectification was also rejected by the Assessing Authority.2. The petitioner raised the issue of the constitutional validity of Section 174(1) (d) and (e) of KGST Act, 2017, enforced from 01/07/2017, not applicable to the 2012-13 assessment period. The petitioner argued that the re-assessment order does not stand legally due to the introduction of the GST regime.3. The Senior Counsel contended that the new GST regime, effective from 01/07/2017, has lacunas due to the non-saving of Entry 54 of List II pre-101st Constitutional Amendment. However, the Court noted that the tax law applicable at the time of the transaction is relevant, and passing the re-assessment order post-GST regime does not invalidate it.4. The Court emphasized that Section 174 of KGST Act, 2017 saves rights under repealed Acts, including KVAT 2003. The constitutional questions raised are deemed academic as the amendments are not applicable to the 2012-13 tax period.5. The Advocate General argued that the amendments post-2017 do not affect the validity of the re-assessment order under KVAT Act, 2003 for the tax evasion related to Input Tax Credit. The GST regime is inapplicable to the present case.6. The Court concluded that the questions raised are academic and do not pertain to the 2012-13 period. The re-assessment order is appealable under Section 62 of KVAT Act, 2003, and the writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal within four weeks without limitation objections.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
