Karnataka High Court
M/S Vonroll India Private Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 July, 2012
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.22113/2012 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/s.VonRoll India Private Limited,
No.15/1/2, 20/1B,
Kempalinganahalli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore-562 123,
Rep.by its President. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri K.Raghavendra, Adv.)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Finance Department,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore-01,
Rep.by its Secretary.
2. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes (DCCT) Audit-6.1,
DVO-6, KIADB Building,
B Block, 3rd Floor,
Peenya Indl.Area, Peenya 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-58. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri T.K.Vedamurthy, HCGP)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated
15.6.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-D and
etc.
2
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing-B group
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The matter arises in a short compass. The challenge in this writ petition is to the endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-the 2nd respondent herein rejecting the request made by the petitioner for rectification of the assessment order passed under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Sections 39(1), 36 and 72(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for the year 2009-10 (for short 'the Act').
3. Petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act engaged in trading activities. The petitioner is duly registered as a dealer under the KVAT Act 2003. The 2nd respondent has passed a reassessment order under Section 39(1) of the Act on 08.03.2012 as per Annexure-A. According to the petitioner, the Assessing Authority has enhanced tax payable due to short fall in the Form-C to an extent of Rs.33,34,701/- in value against sales made to one customer 3 over three quarters. Pointing out this error, the petitioner has made an application on 12.06.2012 requesting for rectification of the reassessment order. Copy of the application is at Annexure-C. The impugned endorsement is issued rejecting this application. The endorsement reads as under:
"Your request for rectification of reassessment order passed under Section 9(2) of CST Act, 1956 read with Section 39(1), 36 and 72(2) of the KVAT Act 2005 for the year 2009-10 cannot be considered as there is no mistake apparent on the records."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this order is not a speaking order and therefore on that ground alone the same is liable to be interfered with.
5. Learned Government Pleader strongly refutes this contention and submits that the reason assigned by the Deputy Commissioner stating that there was no mistake apparent on the records requiring rectification is sufficient in the facts of the present case for rejection of the request, in the light of what has been stated in Section 69 of the Act. He further points out that if the petitioner has made a mistake in not producing the C- Form before the reassessment took place, he cannot blame the 4 authorities by pointing out that it is an apparent error in the order.
6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties and on perusal of Annexure-D endorsement, I find that the Deputy Commissioner has not applied his mind to the nature of the request made by the petitioner and why he has made the request for rectification of the reassessment order. The Deputy Commissioner has simply come to the conclusion that there was no mistake apparent on the records. This cannot be construed as a reasoned order. Reasons for the conclusion are the most important requirement of an order passed by the quasi judicial authority. The requirement to give reasons enjoins upon the quasi judicial authority to bear its upon the case pleaded and to take judicious decision in the matter. In fact such reasons assigned, only help the higher authorities including this Court in exercising the judicial review but also to find out whether it is a matter for interference.
7. In the instant case, as already pointed out, the Deputy Commissioner has not applied his mind to the nature of the request made by the petitioner seeking rectification of the reassessment order and has not found in the course of his 5 order how the said request does not fall within the ambit of Section 69 of the Act.
8. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned endorsement is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner with a direction to reconsider the same by passing a reasoned order.
Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE VP