Karnataka High Court
M/S Trishul Developers vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2023
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
WP No. 13260 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 13260 OF 2022 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS
NO 109B, 1ST FLOOR,
MITTAL TOWER, M G ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001,
NIRAJ MITTAL
PARTNER.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SURYA KANTH C S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
signed by
NARASIMHA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
MURTHY
VANAMALA GOVERNMENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
Location:
HIGH VIDHANA SOUDHA,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES, AUDIT 1.6,
DGSTO-1, III FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX,
YESWANTHAPUR, BENGALURU 560022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K. HEMA KUMAR., AGA)
-2-
WP No. 13260 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING
NO.T.599/2021-22 DATED 17.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE
R-2 VIDE ANNX-G; DIRECT THE R-2 TO CONSIDER THE
RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FILED U/S 69 OF THE
KVAT ACT DATED 04.05.2018 VIDE ANNX-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2021 [Annexure-G] and by this order, the second respondent has informed the petitioner that its application under Section 69 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [KVAT Act] is rejected as there is no mistake apparent on record. It is seen from the records that the petitioner's first application dated 10.05.2016 under Section 69 of the KVAT Act is rejected by order dated 15.12.2016 and thereafter, the petitioner has filed another application on 04.05.2018 following it up with a request on -3- WP No. 13260 of 2022 29.08.2018 and by the impugned order, the application dated 04.05.2018 is rejected.
2. Sri C.S.Surya Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the application is rejected without a personal hearing and without considering the material on record. The materials brought on record demonstrate that there is no reason for reassessment. Sri Hema Kumar A, learned Additional Government Advocate, drawing attention of this Court to the petitioner's application dated 04.05.2018, submits that there is no request for personal hearing and in the absence of a request for personal hearing, the petitioner cannot complain of want of opportunity.
3. In rejoinder, Sri C.S.Surya Kumar submits that personal hearing is sought for when the application dated 10.05.2016 is filed and though such personal hearing is extended, the application is rejected. The officer who extended the personal -4- WP No. 13260 of 2022 hearing is different from the person who has passed the order dated 15.12.2016, and as such, the petitioner had to file the next application enclosing the documents. This time the application is rejected without considering the documents. Sri C.S.Surya Kumar argues that in the circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioner has not requested for a personal hearing.
4. It could be that the first application is heard by a particular officer and the impugned order is by another. Be that as it may, it is seen from the petitioner's subsequent application that there is a detailed reference to certain documents to justify rectification, but without any reference to these, the petitioner's application is rejected by the impugned order dated 17.08.2021. From a reading of the impugned order, it would be reasonable to opine that the second respondent should have considered, in the light of the material brought on record, whether -5- WP No. 13260 of 2022 there was any reason for rectification as contemplated under Section 69 of the KVAT Act and in the absence of such consideration, it must be opined that the application is rejected perfunctorily without considering the material circumstances.
As such, the petition is favoured, and the impugned order dated 17.08.2021 is quashed restoring the proceedings to the second respondent for due consideration after a personal hearing to the petitioner, and the petitioner to avail such personal hearing, shall appear before the second respondent without further notice on 01.03.2023. The second respondent within three months from 01.03.2023, shall decide on the application.
Sd/-
JUDGE NV