TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation dated January 9, 2017 afresh in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and providing copy of any adverse materials relied upon by the respondent, if any, and pass a reasoned order expeditiously. 2. This litigation has a chequered history. The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing and sale of pan masala and being registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("the Act", for short) has filed the monthly returns in Form No. VAT 100 and final returns in Form No. VAT 240 relating to the tax period April 2012 to June 2014. The assessments were concluded by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit)-6.4, under section 39 of the KVAT Act by an order dated May 4, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondent. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order on January 18, 2017 and issued a revised demand notice in terms of the order of the respondent dated December 27, 2016. The petitioner filed appeals against the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated January 18, 2017. In the meantime, STA Nos. 7 to 9 filed by the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was dismissed for default and the same was recalled, finally got dismissed as withdrawn on March 27, 2018. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 36883 of 2018 for directing the respondent to consider and dispose of the rectification application dated January 9, 2017. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent has passed an order on the rectification application. Bei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....court in the case of Dishnet Wireless Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes reported in [2011] 45 VST 255 (Karn). 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate justifying the impugned order, submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable circumventing the alternative statutory appeal contemplated under the Act. It was argued that the respondent has assigned valid reasons for rejecting the rectification application. Hence, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the material on record. 7. To analyze the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apt to refer to section 69 of the Act, which reads t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d issues in the guise of rectification. 8. The arguments of the learned senior counsel that the order impugned is not a speaking order, ex fade animate non-application of mind cannot be countenanced in view of the elaborate reasons assigned by the respondent to arrive at a decision which are as under : Firstly, it is recorded that, there appears to be no mistake apparent in the appeal order nor any documentary evidence or point of submission missed by inadvertence/oversight from the appeal records ; there is no ground whatsoever to rectify the mistake as per sub-section (1) of section 69 of the Act. Secondly, the said order was the subject-matter of the suo-motu proceedings initiated by the competent authority whereby the said proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Leave Petition (Civil Appeal) No. 4481 of 2009 dated March 2, 2009 (Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [2010] 32 VST 432 (SC)). The assessing officer therein without adverting to the contentions advanced by the petitioner in the objections and recording the findings over the same, had held that the objections were untenable. In that context, the Cognate Bench of this court has held that the impugned order was illegal for want of recording of reasons. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the order impugned reflects the application of mind by the respondent and the reasons are recorded for arriving at a decision. 11. It is well-settled law that no writ jurisdiction can ordinarily be exercised where....