TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 876
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice to the petitioner dated August 24, 2009, proposing to determine the tax payable for the period ending March 31, 2008, on the ground that the return submitted by him is incorrect and incomplete. Since the petitioner did not file any objections and participate in the proceedings, he was placed ex parte and an order of assessment was passed as per annexure A1 dated March 30, 2009 determining the taxable turnover at Rs. 50,36,778 and tax payable at Rs. 7,55,578. An order of penalty under section 7B of the Act was also passed directing the petitioner to pay penalty of Rs. 85,000. This was followed by a demand notice at annexure A dated October 21, 2009 calling upon the petitioner to pay balance of tax in a sum of Rs. 3,43,203 and penalty o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue submits that the assessment order impugned in the writ petition is appealable under the Act. The petitioner has to avail of the alternative remedy available to him in law. It is argued that the assessing officer has issued proposition notice, which has been served to the petitioner. It has not chosen to contest the matter. Therefore, the assessing officer had no other option but to place him ex parte and proceed to pass the impugned order and raise the demand. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. The learned High Court Government Pleader has produced the assessment records maintained by the first respondent for the assessment period from April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008. It discl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osition notice dated August 24, 2009 has been served on one Mr. S. Harish on August 29, 2009. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern. The notice ought to have been served by a registered post or by delivering or tendering it to the person to whom it is addressed or to its agent or affixing a copy thereof at some conspicuous place at the hotel or residence of the proprietor liable to pay tax under the Act as provided under rule 14 of the Karnataka Tax on Luxuries (Hotels and Lodging Houses) Rules, 1979. The records do not disclose as to whether the said S. Harish is an agent of the petitioner. The records disclose that all the other correspondences have been served on S. Nagaraj, the manager of the petitioner, who has acknowledged the re....