2018 (5) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion to hold that the Authorities under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short 'KVAT Act') have no jurisdiction to pass Assessment Order beyond the period of five years from the end of the year of Assessment as per Section 32 read with Section 9 (2) of the CST Act. 3. The petitioner is a registered dealer both under the KVAT Act and CST Act and engaged in the sale of electrical goods inside and outside the State of Karnataka. In relation to the Assessment period 2005-06. The petitioner filed monthly return in Form 100 under Section 35 of the KVAT Act, duly declaring all the transaction both under the KVAT Act and CST Act and also paid the applicable taxes thereon. 4. As per the assignment note issued by the Commissioner of Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, justifying the impugned orders would submit that the petitioner without exhausting alternative remedy available under the Act cannot invoke the Writ jurisdiction. Secondly, it is contended that the proposition notice was issued before finalizing the assessment. Original records are placed before the Court to substantiate the same. Thirdly, it is submitted that Section 40 of the KVAT Act has been amended with retrospective effect by Act No.54 of 2013 with effect from 01.04.2005. The Constitutional validity of the said amended provision has been upheld by this Court. Hence, the assessment concluded is within the period of limitation. Fourthly, it is submitted that Section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onal validity of the amendment made to Section 40 of the KVAT Act extending the time limit to conclude the re-assessment has been upheld by this court in the case of CIFTECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED V/S. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in [2015 (83) KLJ 270 (HC)]. This amendment effected by Act No.54 of 2013 with effect from 01.04.2005 retrospectively having been held to be Constitutionally valid, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the assessments are barred by limitation falls to ground. 11. The third submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted for the reason that Section 32 of the KVAT Act contemplates that every dealer is required to keep and maintain books of account or other....