TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016 but till then, since the assessee did not file further objections, therefore, considering the objections dated 29.4.2016, the Assessing Authority passed the reassessment order on that very date on 29.4.2016 itself. Thus, the principles of natural justice cannot be said to have been grossly or totally violated or totally ignored in the present case so as to render the impugned order a nullity, as contended by the learned counsel. The assessee failed to file detailed reply before 25.4.2016 as directed by the Assessing Authority. - writ petition dismissed. - Writ Petitions 35155 - 166 / 2016 (T Res ) - - - Dated:- 29-6-2016 - Vineet Kothari, J. For the Petitioner : Mr R V Prasad, Adv For the Respondent : Mr T K Vedamurthy, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand of ₹ 5.83 crores was proposed to be raised against the petitioner. 4 On merits of the impugned assessment order also, he submitted that even the prescribed deductions of labor charges, as per the schedule given in the relevant Rules, has not been given by the respondent Assessing Authority while computing the taxable turn over in the impugned reassessment order. 5 Learned counsel for the respondent Department, however, opposed these submissions and raised the objection of availability of alternate remedy to the petitioner assessee as the prime objection. 6 The provisions of S.62 of the Karnataka VAT Act are quoted below in-extenso for ready reference: S62: Appeals (1) Any person objecting to any order or proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of thirty days from the date of such application, it shall be deemed that the Appellate Authority has made an order staying proceedings of recovery of such tax or other amount subject to payment of thirty per cent of the tax and other amount disputed and furnishing of sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Assessing Authority in regard to the balance seventy percent of such tax or amount within a further period of fifteen days. (d) Where an order staying proceedings of recovery of any tax or other amount is passed in any proceedings relating to an appeal under sub-section (1), the appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal within a period of two hundred forty days from the date of such order. (e) ....... ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent authority on 29.4.2016 is an appealable order before the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the second appeal would lie before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, as per the said provisions of S.63 onwards. The ground of attack to the impugned reassessment order including the issues relating to breach of principles of natural justice and computation of the taxable turnover, as per Rules - are all questions which certainly can be raised by the petitioner assessee before the appellate authority. It is no ground to avoid the appeal remedy merely because sub-sec.(6-A) of S.62 does not permit the appellate authority to remand the case back to the Assessing Authority and decide the appeal on merits taking the additional evidence on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se his objections before the impugned reassessment order itself was passed. Admittedly, the notice Ex.1 was given to the assessee on 1.4.2016 to which the assessee himself has filed objections vide Annexure C dated 29.4.2016, may be a detailed but a preliminary reply simultaneously asking for more time to file a more detailed reply. In fact, the re-assessment order indicates that the assessee company vide letter of 11.4.2016 had asked for four weeks time for filing detailed objections, but the Assessing Authority gave time only up to 25.4.2016 but till then, since the assessee did not file further objections, therefore, considering the objections dated 29.4.2016, the Assessing Authority passed the reassessment order on that very date on 29. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
