M/s. Ark Plywoods vs The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit-5.2) D.V.O. 5, VTK-II

B.V. Nagarathna, J.—Order dated 28.3.2013 (Annexure-G) passed in reassessment proceedings by the respondent is assailed in these Writ Petitions. Briefly stated, facts are that the petitioner is a dealer in plywood and is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'', for short). Based on Intelligence Report, reassessment proceedings were initiated by the respondent after issuance of notice dated 5.3.2010 to the petitioner. The reassessment proceedings was specifically with regard to the purchases said to have been made by the petitioner from the two firms viz., M/s. Arch Ply and Boards and M/s. National Ply Boards and the amounts remitted to the said firms. In response to the aforesaid notice, petitioner appeared and submitted his reply. The petitioner had also requested for cross-examination of the proprietors/partners of the aforesaid two firms. When the matter stood thus, there was a change in the office of the respondent in as much as a new officer took charge on 7.1.2013. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 28.3.2013 has been passed. It is also stated that the impugned order has been dispatched to the petitioner only on 10.10.2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the incumbent officer took charge on 7.1.2013, he ought to have considered the request made by the petitioner seeking cross-examination of the Proprietors/partners of M/s. Arch Ply and Boards and M/s. National Ply Boards in the matter of remittance made to them by the petitioner on account of certain purchases made by the latter. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order has been passed without letting in evidence of the aforesaid two parties and therefore, there is lack of opportunity given to the petitioner and hence, the conclusions are erroneous.

I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and learned AGA who has appeared on advance notice and who has accepted notice for respondent and perused the material on record.

Sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Act states that an authority or officer so succeeding has to continue the proceeding from the stage at which the proceeding was left by his predecessor. In this case, the petitioner has submitted that the previous officer had not passed any order with regard to the application seeking examination of the Proprietors/partners of the aforesaid two firms and when the matter was at that stage, the present officer took charge and he has passed the impugned order without considering the request of the petitioner for letting in evidence of the partners/proprietors of the aforesaid two firms. Therefore it is contended that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to request the respondent to let in the evidence of the aforesaid two firms so as to prove the case of the petitioner. Since that exercise has not been made in the instant case and the impugned order has been passed as against the petitioner, the same is quashed. The matter is remitted to the respondent. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on 16.12.2013 without insisting on a fresh notice from the said authority. The respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in accordance with law and to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, Writ Petitions are disposed of.