TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the tax period 01/04/2007 to 31/03/2008. c) Such other writ/order/direction, in the facts and circumstances of this case, as deem fit by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. In a nutshell the facts of the case are that the petitioner, Mr. H. S. Vishwanath, is the Proprietor of M/s. Vatsala Constructions, a registered dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003 ('KVAT Act' for short). According to the petitioner, he is carrying on the business of construction activities. He claims that he has been regularly filing the prescribed returns in VAT Form-100 before the respondents. 3. According to the petitioner, on 01.12.2007, the Commercial Tax Officer, (Enforcement)-6, South Zone, Bangalore ('CTO' for short)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... raised by the respondent No.2. But despite the same, by endorsement dated 29.03.2016, the respondent No.2 has rejected the rectification application. 5. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has filed a petition under Section 42(9)(c) of the KVAT Act on 27.06.2016 before the Special Judicial Magistrate First Class (Sales Tax), Bengaluru, namely C.Misc.No.147/2016 for recovery of alleged tax, interest and penalty which was imposed upon the petitioner by the re-assessment order. 6. On 03.10.2016, the petitioner filed a third application against the re-assessment order dated 29.04.2014. However, by endorsement dated 05.11.2016, the third rectification application has also been rejected. Hence, this petition before this Court. 7. Mr. Kumar, M.N., the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t only orally informed, but was also given repeated opportunities to produce the necessary documents. But despite repeated opportunities, he failed to do so. Therefore, having waited, and having given ample opportunities to the petitioner, the assessing authority decided to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner. Thirdly, since ample opportunity was given to the petitioner, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice have been violated by the assessing authority. Fourthly, while dealing with the first rectification application, again an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner which he failed to take the benefit of. According to the learned counsel, it is clearly reflected in the endorsement dated 30.08.2014. Thus, ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee as per the principles of natural justice. For, while a quasi-judicial authority may not follow the intricate procedure of law, but nonetheless it is duty bound to follow a fair procedure. However, if ample opportunities of hearing were given to the assessee, and if the assessee has chosen not to avail the opportunities, he/she cannot be permitted to claim before this Court that opportunity of hearing has not been granted to him/her. 11. A bare perusal of the Assessment Order dated 29.04.2014 clearly reveals that the assessing authority has observed as under: Mr. Vishwanath, the proprietor was located through his business acquaintances and was contacted on Cell No.984551190 and was asked (to) up date the department with his latest ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the petitioner claimed to have filed the copies of Sales and Purchase Registers, and TDS Certificates in Form 156, as annexures to the rectification application. However, said annexures were in fact never filed. The petitioner has admitted to the said lapse. Thereafter, he had sought time of few days, which was duly granted to him, for filing the aforementioned documents. But even till 30.08.2014, no such documents were ever produced by him. Therefore, the rectification application was incomplete as it was not supported by any additional information/documents highlighting the mistake apparent on the record. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was justified in rejecting the first rec....