2015 (4) TMI 1173 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Correctness and legality of the re-assessment order - jurisdiction - Held that - petitioner if so advised would be entitled to file a statutory appeal against order of re- assessment dated 10.02.2015 Annexure-E within three weeks from today. In the event of such appeal being filed appellate authority shall not insist for application for condonation of delay being filed and it shall examine such appeal on merits and in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

The Karnataka High Court considered the correctness and legality of a re-assessment order and demand notice for the assessment year 2011-12. The main issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the re-assessment order and demand notice were legally valid.2. Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had the authority to initiate re-assessment proceedings.3. Whether the re-assessment order was based on proper authorization and jurisdiction.The Court analyzed the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel, M.N. Shankare Gowda, and the arguments put forth by the respondents' counsel, T.K. Vedamurthy. The key points of the Court's analysis are as follows:- The order dated 09.01.2014 was found to be passed under section 39(1) and not section 38(1), as contended by the petitioner's counsel. The Court noted that the Commissioner had authorized the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for re-assessment.- The subsequent notice dated 25.11.2014 issued under section 39(2) was found to be based on proper authorization by the Commissioner, who had reassigned the task to a different Deputy Commissioner for re-assessment.- The Court referenced the Model Bucket and Attachments Private Limited case to emphasize the importance of proper authorization for re-assessment under Section 39(1) of the Act. In this case, the Court found that specific authorization had been issued by the Commissioner for the re-assessment proceedings.In conclusion, the Court held that the re-assessment proceedings were valid and in accordance with the law. The writ petitions challenging the re-assessment order and demand notice were rejected, with the petitioner advised to file a statutory appeal if desired. The Court also directed the Registry to return the certified copy of the impugned order if requested by the petitioner.The significant holdings of the judgment include the validation of the re-assessment proceedings based on proper authorization and jurisdiction, as well as the rejection of the petitioner's contentions regarding the legality of the re-assessment order and notice. The core principle established is the requirement for specific authorization for re-assessment under the relevant provisions of the Act.