TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of the appellant - it is clear that the authorization was not expressly in favour of any specific officer either by name or by designation. This Court in Windsor Garden Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka and Another [2010 (11) TMI 886 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that only Officer who has been authorized by the Commissioner is competent to make re-assessment and such authorization must be express - The Commissioner in this case has not given any such express authorization to Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit – 65) DVO-6. The proposal of the Additional Commissioner itself is defective. It does not specify any particular officer by designation or by name. Consequently, the re-assessment order is without competence. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds to the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement) 3. 5. CTO (Enforcement) 3 processed the said records on 13.09.2006 and 09.03.2007 in the presence of the assessee. Thereafter he forwarded the seized exhibits along with his report to the Assessing Authority for consideration of the said seized documents which wa s marked as Exs.I to IV. The Assessing Authority re- processed those exhibits in the course of verification of the books of accounts in the presence of one K.L.N. Swamy, authorised representative of the assessee - appellant on 22.04.2010 and 26.04.2010. 6. On processing the aforesaid seized exhibits with reference to the books of accounts and returns of turnover filed in Form VAT-100 for tax periods December 2005 to July 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Authority and revived the order of the re-assessing authority. 10. Sri Sathyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant contends that Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit 65) DVO-6 Bangalore was not authorized to re-assess the tax as required under S .2(24) of the KVAT Act, therefore the whole proceedings are vitiated. 11. In support of his contention, he relies upon the Judgment of this Court in WINDSOR GARDEN PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER (2012) 55 VST 406 KARNATAKA and MODEL BUCKET AND ATTACHMENTS PVT. LTD. Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (DM) (2012) 55 VST 401 KARN.12. As against that Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned counsel for the Revenue contends that Additional Commissioner (Central O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from J/C (Admn)VAT Dn.6 may please be seen at pages 12 14 and 16 / CF. As recommended by J/ C, ... may assign the cases for audit to the DC(A) having least pendency in r/o cases at pages 14 and 16 / CF and to Sri B.V. Ravi in r/o M/s. ECIE Impact Pvt. Ltd. As at page 12/CF. For approval, please. Sd/- Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. 17. The note sheet further shows that the Commissioner approved the recommendation as it is. Therefore it is clear that the authorization was not expressly in favour of any specific officer either by name or by designation. This Court in WINDSOR GARDEN PVT. LTD. and MODEL BUCKET cases referred to supra has held that only Officer who has been authorized by the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
