Karnataka High Court
M/S Shalaka Infra Tech (I) Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2018
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
W.P.Nos.6523 - 6525/2017 & 9608 - 9622/2017
(T - RES)
BETWEEN:
M/s SHALAKA INFRA TECH (I) PVT. LTD.,
HOUSE No.2, LALAGONDANAHALLI,
GOBBARAGUNTE
DEVANAHALLI - 562110
REP. BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY
Mr. PRASANNA SHASTRI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O SRI MAHABALESHWAR
GANAPATI SHASTRI ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI G.RABINATHAN, ADV.]
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560001
2. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL
TAXES KARNATAKA
VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA - 1,
GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560009
3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT) 5.5,
-2-
VAT DIVISION -5, 5TH FLOOR,
VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA - 2,
NEAR NATIONAL GAMESH VILLAGE
80 FT ROAD, RAJENDRA NAGAR
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560047 ...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA.)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE REASSESSEMENT ORDER PASSED FOR 2011-
22 AND REASSESSEMENT RECTIFICATION ORDERS PASSED
FOR 2012-13 AND 2013-14 BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES [AUDIT] 5.5 THE R-3 HEREIN UNDER
KVAT ACT, 2003 AND THE NOTICES OF DEMAND ISSUED IN
FORMS VAT 180 IN PURSUANCE THEREOF DEMANDING
PAYMENT OF TAX, PENALTY AND INTEREST IN THE
AGGREGATES OF Rs.3,44,16,444 OF 2011-12 Rs.3,81,75,759
FOR 2012-13 AND Rs.1,14,16,550 FOR 2013-14 ANENXURE-E, F,
G DATED 31.12.2016 & 07.01.2017
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the reassessment order dated 31.12.2016 and 07.01.2017 relating to the tax periods 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013- 14 at Annexures-E, F and G respectively.
2. It is the claim of the petitioner that the contract executed by the petitioner for BESCOM is -3- divisible contract having awarded separate contracts to the petitioner as supply contract for supply of materials and erection contract for erection of materials and the issue is covered by the judgment of this court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA V/S. TRANSGLOBAL POWER LIMITED, BANGALORE, reported in 2014 (80) Kar.L.J.575 (HC) (DB). It is contended that the reassessment order passed by the prescribed authority considering the contract in question as indivisible and composite, requires to be interfered with under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue would raise a preliminary objection in as much as maintainability of the writ petitions challenging the order of prescribed authority without exhausting alternative and efficacious remedy available under the Act.
-4-
4. In order to consider the preliminary objection raised by the Revenue, it is apt to refer to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner which revolves around the terms and conditions of the contract executed by the petitioner with the BESCOM as well as with M/s. BVG India Ltd., with whom the subcontract is executed on back to back basis, who has procured the goods from outside the State and invoice is raised in the name of the petitioner herein, while the goods are in transit. It is the claim of the petitioner that E1 and E2 sales are effected, the goods purchased from outside the State are delivered to BESCOM on the site where the project has to be executed, installation has been effected thereafter by the petitioner. No doubt, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of TRANSGLOBAL POWER LIMITED supra, while considering the contract executed by the assessee therein with the KPTCL has confirmed the order of the Tribunal in the sales tax Revision Petition answering the -5- questions of law raised therein in favour of the assessee, the issue of E1 and E2 sales or the inter-state sales was not the subject matter before this Court.
5. It is the argument of the petitioner that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to conclude the assessment under the Provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, since the transaction involved herein squarely falls under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. As such, this court has to interfere with the order impugned. This argument of the learned counsel cannot be countenanced for the reason that these complex issues involving the factual aspects requires to be agitated before the Appellate Forum. The Statute has prescribed a mechanism with complete machinery to adjudicate the dispute/challenge to the assessment order.
6. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the reassessment order challenged herein requires to be -6- adjudicated before the appropriate Forum. No ground is found to allow the petitioner to circumvent the alternative remedy provided under the statute to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.
7. Hence, writ petitions stand dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. If such an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same on merits without raising any objection to the limitation aspect.
With the aforesaid observations, Writ Petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC