TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 488
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent for collection of the value added tax including the penalty and several orders impugned herein. 3. Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing Baba Gutkha, Hira Gutkha and Hira Pan Masala in Nipani in Belgaum district. It is not in dispute that the petitioner firm is registered under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 with TIN No. 29530256237 and registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Entry Tax Act, 1979. The petitioner as stated earlier is a manufacturer of Gutkha and sells Gutkha and Pan Masala within the State, so also in the course of interstate trade, and export out of the country. For the year 2010-11, the petitioner firm ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....powers of the State. It is not only illegal and arbitrary, but it was deliberate, unconscionable and it is unconstitutional. 6. Learned counsel further contends that there is no jurisdiction or authority to the respondent to initiate proceedings against the petitioner as no assessment order was made and no notice was issued and he was not given a fair opportunity of hearing and as a matter of fact, it only relates to Entry Tax and does not relates to Value Added Tax, so also he has paid the Entry Tax as required under law. Therefore, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire process of assessment made by the respondent authority with regard to evasion of tax and compounding of tax which is said to be agreed or c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... days for compounding the said offence as contemplated in law in lieu of prosecution by filing a charge sheet in the Court of law. It is further contended by learned counsel that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity and time to put forth his case and explore the legal opportunities available to him under law or to compound the offence. 8. This being the state of affairs, the petitioner in his statement made on 09.02.2012, agreed the VAT liability on account of sales effected without a proper document and undertook to pay the evaded tax liability by e-payment to the office of the LVO-400, Nippani. Further, he has given a letter of admission also dated 09.02.2012 admitting the tax liabilities and willing to compound the offence de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lways open to him to challenge the same as the appeal remedy is provided under section 62 of the KVAT Act, 2003. 10. It is also contended by the learned counsel for respondent with regard to argument as to no jurisdiction and authorization available to the respondent, he contends that the Karnataka Act No. 5 of 2008, the provisions of sub section (1) of section 52 of the Value Added Tax 2003 have been amended, whereby in sub-section (1) of section 52 of the Act after the words "authorized by the Commissioner", the words "to exercise all or powers specified below either generally or specifically" have been inserted with retrospective effect from 01.04.2005 and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes from time to time has been issuing notificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e amount, he cannot now turn around and blow hot and cold at the same time by saying that the respondent does not have the jurisdiction and authority to initiate the process after making good the payment which is sought for by the respondent, including the Entry Tax as well as the Value Added Tax along with CF amount. 12. Under these circumstances and on careful perusal of the records, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on several judgments in support of his case to show that the assessment order has not been done and neither is the reassessment been done. The same would not apply to the petitioner in the present case for the reason that the petitioner had not approached this Court to show that the assessment order is....