TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1320
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as also imposed an interest and penalty totaling Rs. 2,22,31,826/-. The petitioner has also challenged the endorsement date d 01.12.2016, also passed by the DCCT, Mangaluru, and the garnishee notices dated 17.05.2016, and 14.06.2016, also issued by the DCCT, Mangaluru, against the petitioner for realizing the tax liability, interest, and the penalty amounting to the aforementioned amount. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that that petitioner- Company is registered under the Indian Companies Act, and is equally a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("the KVAT Act") vide TIN No.29310852035. According to the petitioner, it entered into an agreement of sub-contract on 01.03.2012, with M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the petitioner. Subsequently, on 08.01.0216, the DCCT issued a notice to the petitioner directing the petitioner to produce the books of accounts for the year 2014-15. By letter dated 22. 02.2016, the petitioner sought extension of time for producing the relevant Books of accounts and the relevant documents. 5. Moreover, according to the petitioner, on 10.02.2016, the Managing Director of the Company me t with an accident and had to undergo surgery. 6. On 04.03.2016, the DCCT issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner proposing to levy VAT at 14.5% on the taxable turnover by allowing 30% towards labour and like charges from out of the total turnover. However, according to the petitioner, the DCCT has taken a stand proposing to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pay a sum of Rs. 2,22,31,826/-. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 8. This Court has raised a pointed query to the learned counsel for petitioner that since an efficacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioner, as to why th e said alternate remedy has not been taken recourse to instead of challenging the re-assessment order, rejection of rectification application, and the garnishee notices before this Court? To this query, the learned counsel submits that firstly, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner's right under the principles of natural justice has been violated by the respondent No.1. Secondly, that the re-assessment order is palpably illegal. Therefore, it needs to ....