Cement Sales Corporation vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Another

N.K. Patil, J.—Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the outset submitted that, she does not press prayers (a) to (r) sought in the petition for the present and the instant writ petition is confined only so far as prayers (s) and (t) are concerned. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner as stated above, is placed on record and the writ petition is limited to only so far as prayers (s) and (t) are concerned.

The prayer (s) sought in the writ petition is to quash the impugned endorsement dated September 12, 2007, vide annexure F bearing No. ACCT. ADT. 1/CR-94/2006-07 issued by the first respondent and the prayer (t) sought is to direct the first respondent to consider the application vide annexure E dated September 4, 2007, filed u/s 69 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, in terms of Section 30(3) and after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate the claim, in the interest of justice and equity.

The only grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation vide annexure E on September 4, 2007, pointing out there is a mistake apparent on the face of record and requested rectification of the order u/s 39(1) dated July 16, 2007, by invoking the power u/s 69 in the interest of justice and equity and further requested to keep the demand made in notice dated July 24, 2007, in abeyance till the orders on the said representation is passed by the authority. In pursuance of the said application filed by the petitioner u/s 69 of the KVAT Act, 2003, vide annexure E, the first respondent has issued the endorsement dated September 12, 2007, vide annexure F without affording an opportunity to petitioner and the same is unilateral in natural inasmuch as the said authority has not considered the relief sought for by the petitioner vide annexure E. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to redress its grievance by presenting the instant writ petition.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

After careful perusal of the impugned endorsement dated September 12, 2007, vide annexure F, it emerges that there is no opportunity as such afforded to the petitioner before issuing such endorsement. If the endorsement is issued by the quasi-judicial authority, the same should be issued in full compliance with the principles of natural justice. In the instant case, there is no compliance with the principles of natural justice as such afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned endorsement dated September 12, 2007, vide annexure F is liable to vitiate. Hence, it is liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be reconsidered by the first respondent afresh.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as follows:

(i) The writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part;

(ii) The endorsement impugned dated September 12, 2007, vide annexure F issued by the first respondent is hereby set aside;

(iii) Matter stands remitted back to the first respondent to reconsider the matter afresh and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law and in the light of the application filed by the petitioner u/s 69 of the KVAT Act, 2003, vide annexure E and after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner or their Counsel and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.