9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering a proposal for reassessment under section 39(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003 and notice under section 5(4) of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 ("KTEG Act", in short) was issued to the assessee which was dated May 30, 2008, copy produced at annexure A to the writ petition and the assessee was called upon to respond to the proposal within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. The assessee instead, it appears had written a letter on June 5, 2008 seeking further clarification. The assessing authority issued endorsement dated June 7, 2008 clarifying the aspects under the provisions of the KVAT and KTEG Acts and again impressed upon the assessee to file objections as had been informed earlier and within seven days from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nally charged less discount." Sri G.K.V. Murthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would very vehemently urge that the rule virtually takes away the benefit sought to be given under section 30 of the KVAT Act, which is one provided for issue of "credit and debit notes" and essentially for the purpose of availing of a discount from the turnover of an assessee, even though the invoices value might have shown the net price inclusive of the discount, etc. The submission is that under the rule, a dealer is compelled to disclose what discount he is offering at the time of the transaction, whereas under the Act, under section 30, a time-limit of six months is given to the dealer to make up what discount he is offering, etc. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebit notes shall modify his return for the period in which the credit note or debit note is issued and pay any tax due on such return." Submission proceeds on a very fallacious ground that the rule particularly proviso to rule 3(2)(c) of the KVAT Rules, is either discriminatory or ultra vires of section 30. In fact, the rule mandates the applicability of the procedure to all assessees. There is no question of discrimination under this rule. As to how the rule may affect different assessees or different dealers is not the criteria for holding that the rule is a discriminatory provision and discriminates from dealer to dealer. In so far as the ultra vires assessment is concerned I find that the rule only stipulates the disclosure of some in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
