2019 (2) TMI 431 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court favors petitioner due to lack of natural justice in assessment process, emphasizes importance of form verification.

Wipro Infrastructure Engineering, (A Division of Wipro Enterprises (P) Ltd.) Versus State of Karnataka

Wipro Infrastructure Engineering, (A Division of Wipro Enterprises (P) Ltd.) Versus State of Karnataka - [2019] 64 G S.T.R. 162 (Kar) Issues:Challenge to order under CST Act and KVAT Act, non-acceptance of Forms C and F, arbitrariness in assessment, pending files for other tax periods, transfer of assessment proceedings, consideration of rectification application, maintainability of writ petition, exercise of writ jurisdiction, principles of natural justice.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956 and Section 36 of the KVAT Act, 2003, along with a demand notice. The grievance was the non-acceptance of physical Forms C and F by the Assessing Officer, who directed the petitioner to upload them on the electronic portal. The petitioner complied on 01.01.2019, but the impugned order on 29.12.2018 demanded a significant amount for tax periods April 2013 to July 2013, creating an issue of arbitrariness in assessment.The petitioner's counsel argued that sufficient opportunity was not provided to upload the forms electronically before the assessment was concluded hastily, despite time available until 31.03.2019. They also mentioned pending files for other tax periods and requested transfer of assessment proceedings to the officer at Mysuru under Section 59 of the KVAT Act, 2003. Additionally, they sought consideration of a rectification application that had not been addressed yet.The Additional Government Advocate contended that the petitioner should have exhausted the appellate remedy before approaching the Court, highlighting that the statutory Forms were uploaded after the reassessment order. However, the Court noted that the Forms were uploaded on 01.01.2019 and were crucial in determining the taxable turnover, indicating a flaw in the impugned order's assessment.The Court found that the order suffered from a lack of natural justice as adequate opportunity to upload the forms was not provided. Despite the availability of alternative remedies, the Court deemed the writ petition maintainable. It emphasized the importance of verifying the genuineness of the forms for potential tax concessions and directed the Assessing Officer to consider the rectification application filed by the petitioner before transferring the proceedings.Ultimately, the Court directed the Assessing Officer to decide on the rectification application promptly and instructed the petitioner to appear without notice. The reassessment order was stayed until a decision on the rectification application was made, emphasizing the need for a fair and expedited resolution of the matter.