Karnataka High Court
M/S J M C Projects (India) Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 25 May, 2009
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
IN was man comer OFKARKATAIKA A15 " V
mmn nus ms 23m :§AY §e4?'_2}¢o9. ' _
THE 1-Iozrnm
mm nomnm
J '$10, ' % 'r-Rm;
M/' s..;?.M_. C.Pi*:2§eci:s (Enéiia_)Ltd. ,
and
Gold Téwer, No".-5{3, II. Figor
R¢sidcncy*RoadV "
Bafigalore 560 925.
Rcfp:.by%sri Nitin
S/o.S:'i.AC11iI!I1ubhaiPaz'ikh
' .A$z;t,AV'1;";e I'r§s1§1cnt. - ....Appe11ant
Sri K.S.Ramab admn, Adv.)
f_I'he"I5eputy Commissioner of
_ Ciommercial Taxes
" Audit» 13, I)VO- 1
Bangalore 560 M9.
2. The Commercial Tax Oflicer
(InteIligenoe)- XI
South Zone, VFK -~ 2 1 2 A_
80 feet Road, Koramangaia ..
Bangalore 560 047. "
3. The Commissioner of _
Commercial Taxes
Karnataka Commercial Taxes; V " " - ._
Building, oandmxfiar A .r
Bangalore 560 009. V 1 .-~«l.,;'.I§es§3ondents
4-«J%r_%:e;By3sri AGA)
Thiaé Wfifit is-.lfil'ed" under Sec.4 of the
KaInata1(a"H_igIiI Act to set aside the order
passed V?/4I'i€:.4}5'{:_l:it:'toI?l N0. 1621}-13/2008 dated
16.12.2008. * ' e
Thia._'5.Vrlt._ coming on for prelimma1y'
hea;-'i _ , Gowda, J. , delivered the fo11oWi11g:-
JUDGMENT
eorrecmess of the order dated 16.12.2008 lL}§¢;:'lIIA'l€ learned Single Judge in WP Nos. 16211- 33/ous, who has dismissed the writ petitions reserving ll to the petitioner to pursue other remedies as when required and available in law, is questioned in this appeal urging various grounds. W}
2. The learned Single Judge has para--3 of the impugned order the " "
notice issued by the 21*'! respondent[:ur;der A Karnataka Value Added Tagdagt, cm geupozi the e appellant/dealer to p:oduqe d13;;gkse» Fofaocounvtdés for the purpose of regarding assesisment of {udder conmdering legal Sr. Counsel on d 25 Single Judge with regani to legal' by the dealer that 2114 ' __ no jurisdiction to issue the show has referred to the definition of in terms of Sec.2('.24) of the Act read" Sec.39 of the Act and held that it does not such limitation and that Commissioner has taken away the jurisdiction to act as a 'prwcr-lbw authority' in resmt of apmllanvdealer \N[ from the first respondent and has jurisdiction on "the second respo1;der1t"'aI.idv. without affording an opportt§:e)it§i_'_' hearIng ' appellant and is t11eI*efotfe"*~..yioleiti'te Vof'>v:v';'5i*i,t1L3ip}es of A natural justice eaxmot be for that it is not a right of ant that a particular ofiicer alone to 'of the businms is an "Assessing at the relevant pomtoy by the Govexnment or the Commissioner per statutory provisions of the Act. Vt Tiiei-e£ore;e the Single Judge has rightly found no reason for him to interfere with the iin-pug§1e:1tA.1'~'ntotice. Hence, the rmords and books are to be produced by the appellant:-dealer for the A' of 21"-'~ respondent to be examined in View of the
-{rower eonferxed upon him under See.39 of the Act. For the reasons stated supra, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the order. The order of the 'N/ Iearned single judge is perfectly legal 4_ appeal is devoid of merit and it.is»v1is.b1e.'_f,o V' ' ; ii
4. Accordingly, the appeaiis 'g i 3 Sk/ck voGJ_&sRx'1$&J}i;se oi;
29'S':E200g'VAAV _ ' oi: :.?fi:j1i'.BEIKG sperms 'ro* " "At the of appeilarxfls counsel, this matter for 'being spoken to' as the Judment was not signed, we have heard learned Senior counsel.
' A' ' Learned senior counsel, Srisarangan submits illegality of the impugxed notice was challenged V' on the gonna that prescribed authority could not have issued the same without initiating proceedings 'M for reassessment of the turnover tax and.A4'ihezfefoi*efd1ev. issuance of Show cause notice ' ; endorsement are without contention, he has of V this Court in BIDAR...SAHAKdR LTD vs THE STATE (53 s'rc (KAR) 55) and U.LAx1ym§1§: v:SHI§i§'§;)Y:V:::ve:fi;S$T;'§§iQIMISSIONER OF (ILR 2003 KAR 5034).
urged by the learned ..-efctensively dealt with by the learned his order and we have accepted V' ., by the learned Single judge in the doufeonsidered view, issuance of Show cause eofice_.- second respondent and impugxed Aendoisement are within the jurisdiction of the authority and therefore, the above referred ..._._§udgments on which reliance was placed by learned senior counsel are misplaced and have no application to \/ the facts of this case.
4. The ieamed senior counsel attention to the assessment' "order 1:.!2e»7 assessing authority in respect of asseseniezit 'in, question and to the cause and contemled . !§h!ess 'fie-exesessmaxt proceedings are cause notice could not contenfion also must: tiie Show cause notice, the for calling 'upon the the documents mentioned 'I"r:e;"éfox4e;%'"\ii%e do not find any reason to rcmll 25-5-2009. Hence, the order dictated intact.
sp/ ck