M/S Dix Engineering Project Services ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 11 February, 2016

[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Dix Engineering Project Services ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 11 February, 2016

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016

                           BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

     WRIT PETITION NOs.6635-6646 OF 2016 (T - RES)

Between:

M/s. Dix Engineering Project Services Pvt. Ltd.,
A Company Registered Under the Companies Act, 1956,
Having Office at MMC Complex,
Beach Road, Panambur,
Mangalore - 575 010.
Represented by Managing Director,
Sri. Devananda Shetty,
S/o Late Venkappa Shetty,
Aged about 58 years.                       ...Petitioner

(By Smt. Vani. H., Adv.)

And:

1.     Assistant Commissioner of
       Commercial Taxes, Audit - 7,
       Divisional VAT Office,
       4th Floor, Vanijya Therige Bhavana,
       Maidan Road,
       Mangalore - 575 001.

2.     State of Karnataka,
       Department of Finance,
       Represented by its Secretary,
                               2


     Vidhana Soudha,
     Bengaluru - 560 001.                     ...Respondents

(By Shri. S. V. Girikumar, AGA)
                             ---
     These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
reassessment order dated.24.07.2015 for the year 2011-12
passed by the R-1 and the consequent demand notice in
form VAT 180 vide Annexure - A and etc.,

      These Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, the Court made the following:-

                         ORDER

The petition coming on for preliminary hearing, is disposed of on short point that notwithstanding the rectification application filed by the petitioner against the reassessment order in respect of the assessment year 2011- 2012, the respondent authority having issued an endorsement directing recovery of the amount due from the petitioner, the petitioner is before this court. If a rectification application was filed before the authority, it is appropriate that the rectification application be considered first and thereafter further steps be taken. Consequently, 3 the endorsement issued under challenge is quashed. The respondent authority is directed to consider the application for rectification filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the authority without any further notice on 22.02.2016. The further complaint is also to the effect that reassessment order is a non-speaking order. If no cogent reasons are assigned, it is for the authorities to reconsider the same and pass a detailed order.

Sd/-

JUDGE ykl

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court