TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 1173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcess input taxes is allowed to be carried forward. A notice under section 39(2) under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short `Act') for reassessment came to be issued on 25.11.2014 Annexure-B. Initially petitioner filed objections on 08.12.2014 and thereafter additional objections came to be filed on 19.01.201 5 vide Annexures-C and D respectively and after considering the plea of the petitioner-assessee first respondent namely Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit)-3. 4, DVO-3 passed an order under section 39(2) of the Act on 10.02.2015 Annexure-E. Assailing the validity of notice dated 25.11.2014 Annexure-B for reassessment being illegal and as such re-assessment order passed under section 39(2) read with section 72....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... indicator to the fact that there was no application of mind at the time of issuance of notice for reassessment. Hence, he contends order of re-assessment is bad in law. In support of his submission he has relied upon following Judgments: 1. (2010) 69 KLJ 290 - Model Bucket and Attachments Private Limited, Dharwad Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (DM), Hubli 2. (2010) 68 KLJ 17 - R.C. India, Bangalore Vs State of Karnataka. 5. Per contra, Sri. T.K. Vedamurthy, learned HCGP appearing for respondents would support not only the order of re-assessment but also notice issued prior to it and contends that order dated 09.01.2014 though does not specifically indicate that it is an order passed under section 39(1) of the Act i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed under section 39(1) and it cannot be construed as a n order being passed under section 38(1) as contended by Sri. M.N. Shankare Gowda, learned counsel appearing f or petitioner, inasmuch as an order under section 38(1) is a deemed assessment order based on the returns filed by assessee and accepting the same without calling for production of books of accounts. Whereas in the instant case assessing officer has called upon the assessee/petitioner to produce books of accounts and after scrutiny of records assessment order dated 09.01.2014 came to be passed. It also requires to be noticed that the Commissioner i n exercise of power under Rule 46 has passed an order on 30.11.2013 authorising the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Taxes, (Audit)-3.4 for determination of tax payable and to frame reassessment order as could be seen from the order dated 19.11.2014 and for immediate reference operative portion of the said order is extracted he rein below: 8. At this juncture itself it would be appropriate to note the contention of Sri. M.N. Shankare Gowda, learned counsel appearing for petitioner. He has contended that reason assigned is for verification of CST transaction and re- assessment initiated is in respect of VAT transaction and as such it cannot be construed as a valid assignment. Though at first blush said argument looks attractive, on deeper examination it would not hold water, for the simple reason namely it is the internal audit wing which has assigned th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar that the reassessment must be by the authorized person and authorized person is one who has been authorized by the Commissioner for Commercial Tax. When law requires that the Commissioner shall authorize the officer, the authorization must be an expressed authorization. 10. In this case, the State has not disputed that there is no expressed authorization except relying on the e-mail print out. No other material is produced to show that the Commissioner had issued any authorization to the officer. The authorized officer must be a person competent to reassess the tax in consonance with the provisions of Section 39". 10. It was noticed by Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Model Bucket's case referred to supra that State therein had not ....