Abb India Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 6 March, 2018

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Abb India Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 6 March, 2018

Bench: S.Sujatha

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018

                        BEFORE:

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

        WRIT PETITION No.8149/2018 (T - RES)

BETWEEN:
ABB INDIA LTD.
PLOT Nos.4, 5 AND 6, 2ND PHASE
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BENGALURU-560058
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT - TAXATION
Mr. SANTOSH KUMAR.                           ... PETITIONER

         [BY SRI K.P.KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
               SRI SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADV.]

AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES
(AUDIT) - 6.1, DVO-6, BENGALURU
KIADB BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR
14TH CROSS, PEENYA
BENGALURU-560058.                        ...RESPONDENT

              [BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.01.2018 BEARING
CASE No.239337662 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER
SECTION 9(2) OF THE CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT, 1956, READ
WITH SECTION 36(1) AND 37 OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE
ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 FOR THE TAX PERIODS APRIL 2015 TO
MARCH 2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
                            -2-


       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                       ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has challenged the reassessment order dated 20.01.2018 passed by the respondent under Section 9[2] of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Sections 36[1] and 37 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, ['Act', for short] for the tax period April 2015 to March 2016, inter alia, challenging the demand notice issued in Form VAT 180, for the tax period April 2015 to March 2016.

3. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is passed sans issuing the proposition notice which is mandatory under the provisions of the Act.

4. On instructions of Mr. Sridas, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who is present -3- before the court, learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that by inadvertence, required proposition notice was not issued prior to passing of the order impugned.

In view of the aforesaid submission, order and demand notices impugned, cannot be sustained and are set aside. Writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the respondent to re do the reassessment in accordance with law in an expedite manner.

Sd/-

JUDGE AN/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court