2015 (3) TMI 1198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals are being disposed of at the admission stage. 3. The brief facts of this case are that for the tax period April 2007 to March 2008 and for the period April 2008 to March 2009, notice under section 52(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for brevity) was issued to the appellant, who is engaged in the  business of construction, supply, erection and commissioning of cooling  towers for power plants, steel plants, etc. The notice dated January 9, 2015  was issued on the ground that the appellant had not claimed input-tax  rebate in form VAT-100 and therefore,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... further contended that clause (m) of the aforesaid Rules, was not applicable in the case of the appellant and since in the order, the assessing officer had accepted that the audit report in form VAT-240 had been submitted by the appellant, the assessing officer has erred in law by applying the principles of clause (m) of rule 3(2) by stating that the appellant (assessee-company) had not filed the audited balance sheet to ascertain the actual labour charges deduction. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order passed was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice because the same was done without examining the records and as such, the writ petition ought to have been entertained on merit. 6.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... officer has in fact ignored the reply of the assessee and the documents  filed by the assessee and has thus committed a grave mistake, which, in  our opinion would fall within the purview of violation of principles of natural justice. This we say so because merely granting opportunity to file a reply and document would not be sufficient unless the same is considered and appreciated by the authority. As such, in the aforesaid facts, relegating the appellant to avail of the alternate remedy by filing the appeal cannot be justified. Thus, we are of the view that the order dated March 5, 2015 whereby the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned single judge (Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial ....