TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitions and the consequential endorsement dated 14.02.2018 issued by the Respondent No.2 enclosed as Annexures-C1, C2, C3 and C4 to the writ petitions. 2. Petitioner is engaged in execution of civil works contract of construction of buildings and other works contract for private parties and Government. The petitioner-company was registered both under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ['Act', for short] and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The business premises of the petitioner was visited by the Respondent No.2 on 14.11.2011 for the purpose of audit for the period April 2010 to March 2011. Pursuant to audit conducted, the reassessment order dated 22.11.2011 was passed by the Respondent No.2 under Section 39[1] of the Act wherein retu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bjections filed by the petitioner, Respondent No.2 passed orders under Section 39[2] of the Act to the effect that there was merit in the objections filed by the petitioner and hence proposal made in the show cause notice dated 30.04.2014 was dropped. Again notice under section 39 [2][e] of the Act dated 25.06.2016 was issued by the Respondent No.2 to initiate reassessment proceedings for the period April 2010 to March 2013 on the same ground that claim of labour and like charges at 30% on the total contract receipts which include taxes collected and again allowing deduction towards taxes collected to arrive at taxable works contract receipts resulted in excess allowance of labour charges on the taxes collected which resulted in short payme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld contend that subsequent to dropping of the proceedings initiated under Section 39[2] of the Act by the Respondent No.2, notices were issued on 25.06.2016 under Section 39[2][e] of the Act by the very same Authority, to initiate reassessment proceedings. Such being the position, the order passed by the Respondent No.2 on 16.08.2014 dropping the proceedings initiated under Section 39[2] of the Act ceases to exist. The Respondent No.1 initiating proceedings under Section 63-A[1] of the Act, to revise the order dated 16.08.2014 passed by the Respondent No.2 is nullity and without authority of law. 6. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following Judgments: [a] 'THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout jurisdiction in invoking Section 63-A of the Act pending reassessment proceedings under Section 39[2][e] of the Act? 11. To collate the legal aspects on this issue, it is apt to refer to the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SRI RAMULU supra, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus: "xxx xxx xxx The reason for that is that once an assessment is reopened, the initial order for assessment ceases to be operative. The effect of reopening the assessment is to vacate or set aside the initial order for assessment and to substitute in its place the order made on reassessment. The initial order for reassessment cannot be said to survive, even partially, although the justification for reassessment arises because of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Hubli & Ors., (supra) was a case arising out of rectification proceedings. In that case this Court held that once an assessment order had been rectified and it was sought to make a further rectification of that order the period of limitation for making such further rectification would commence not from the date of the original assessment order but from the date of the earlier rectification order. In Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. H.R. Sri Ramulu this Court has clearly laid down that when once a notice is issued for purposes of making reassessment the assessment proceedings become re-opened and the initial order of assessment ceases to be operative. The Court has further held that the effect o....