9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Taxes (Audit) ("the Assessing Officer, for short), whereby the Assessing Officer calculated the petitioner's liability as Rs. 1,33,81,696/- including penalty and interest, and by the later assessment order, the total liability is assessed as Rs. 80,22,757/- including penalty and interest. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is also registered as a dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act ("the KVAT Act", for short). By notice dated 27.01.2017, the petitioner was informed that the Department proposes to reassess the tax for the Assessment Year from April, 2010 to March, 2011, and from April, 2012 to March, 2013. The petitioner filed h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, despite the request made by the petitioner that an opportunity of personal hearing should be given by the Assessing Officer, the same was never given to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was denied an opportunity to explain the pleas raised by it. Secondly, despite the fact that a particular plea has been raised in Para 3.4 of the reply, while pas sing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has blandly held that the particular plea raised in 3.4 is a general plea. Therefore, it is rejected. According to the learned counsel, the entire crux of the matter was with regard to the fact that the motor vehicles which are leased out could be leased out during a period of 24 - 36 months after the vehicle may have been purchased by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing Officer has informed the petitioner that no such separate order sheets were maintained. Thus, no certified copy of the or der sheets can be provided by the Assessing Officer to the petitioner. The learned counsel for petitioner therefore claims that it is not possible for him to establish that an opportunity of hearing was denied to the petitioner as claimed by him. Therefore, the assertion made by the learned counsel for petitioner that an opportunity of hearing was not given, cannot be accepted in the light of the observation made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order itself. 7. However, a perusal of the assessment orders dated 21.02.2017, and 01.03.2017, clearly reveal that while the Assessing Officer has noted the sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
