AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Nagarathna, J.—The orders of the 1st respondent authority dated 29.10.2013 (Annexures-E1-E4) for the tax periods December 2005 to March 2006, April 2006 to March 2007, April 2007 to March 2008 and April 2008 to March 2009 respectively passed u/s 63A of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) are assailed in these Writ Petitions. The consequential demand notices dated 29.10.2013 (Annexures-F1-F4) for the aforesaid periods are also assailed in these Writ Petitions. Briefly stated the facts according to the petitioner are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of leasing motor cars to various corporate customers, sale of used motor cars and fleet management services. It is a registered dealer (non-resident) under the provisions of the Act in the State of Karnataka. For the aforementioned tax periods, reassessment proceedings were initiated u/s 39(1) of the Act. Subsequently, those proceedings were dropped by order dated 23.09.2009 by accepting the revised returns filed by the petitioner and allowing the benefit of input tax credit after verifying its claims with its books of account. These orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. These orders were subjected to suo moto revisional jurisdiction of the 1st respondent u/s 63A read with Section 47(3) of the Act. The 1st respondent had issued notice of the revisional proceedings to the petitioner which was served on the petitioner. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that in response to the notice of the revisional authority, the petitioner did not file any reply. Thereafter the impugned orders dated 29.10.2013 were passed in respect of the aforesaid tax periods. Being aggrieved by those orders, Writ Petitions have been preferred.
I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned AGA for respondents who appears on advance notice and perused the material on record.
The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner is that the revisional jurisdiction has been exercised by respondent No. 1 without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case as well as to produce the necessary documents. If the petitioner had been granted an opportunity of hearing, then the impugned orders would not have been passed. He therefore contended that despite there being an alternative remedy of an appeal against the impugned orders, remedy by way of Writ Petition has been availed by the petitioner as the impugned orders have been passed without hearing the petitioner which is in violation of principles of Natural justice.
Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order by contending that although sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner, it was not availed and having no other alternative, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned orders which would not call for any interference by this Court.
I have perused the impugned orders dated 29.10.2013 which have been passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 63A of the Act. Sub-section 1 of Section 63A of the Act categorically states that before passing any order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the person concerned must be given an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment ought to be ordered.
In the circumstances, at para 10 of the impugned orders, it is no doubt noted that in response to the notice issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioner''s representative appeared and sought time for producing the details and records before the authority. It is also noted that 20 days time was granted. But no specific date for producing the necessary documents was fixed. In fact time was granted on 07.10.2013 and the impugned orders have been passed on 29.10.2013 whereas the petitioner had sought time till the end of October 2013 to produce the details and records before the authority. Possibly, if the matter was taken up for consideration on a particular date in October or later, by then, the petitioner would have appeared and produced the materials. As the impugned orders have been passed on 29.10.2013, petitioner was not in a position to put forth his case along with the details and records before the 1st respondent. Therefore, the impugned order have been passed without considering the case of the petitioner and neither looking into the records that were to be submitted by the petitioner and hence would have to be quashed.
On this short ground alone, the impugned orders are quashed. Petitioner is directed to appear before the 1st respondent authority on 16.01.2014 with necessary details and records pertaining to the aforesaid tax periods. If the petitioner appears on the said date, 1st respondent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and to dispose of the revision proceedings expeditiously. The petitioner is also directed to co-operate with the 1st respondent authority in expeditious disposal of the revision proceedings. In the result, impugned orders at Annexures-E1 to E4 and Annexures-F1 to F4 as well as all consequential demand notices are quashed.
Writ Petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.