AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J.—The petitioners are dealers running the business in the sale of commodities like rough granite, polished granite tiles and slabs, etc. The petitioners have got registered u/s 22 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and also under the provisions under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 before respondent 2. Respondent 1 having issued a notification dated 31-12-2009 prescribing that:
"Every dealer registered under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and who is required to carry a delivery note in Form VAT 505 or Form VAT 515 for transporting goods, may obtain a delivery note in Form VAT 505 for such transportation of goods, electronically from 1st January, 2010, issued another notification dated 24-5-2010 providing that every dealer registered under the Act who dispatches any of the goods mentioned, as a result of sale, whole value exceeds twenty thousand rupees, shall enter the details of such goods in the format appearing in one of the departmental websites before the movement of goods commences".
Challenging the notification dated 24-5-2010, as at Annexure-D, mandating a dealer registered under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, to enter the details of such goods in the format appearing in one of the departmental websites before the movement of goods commences and insofar as it mandates to take delivery note in Form VAT 515 from the departmental website of respondent 1 only, this writ petitions was filed.
A mandamus was also sought as against respondent 1, to conform to its earlier notification dated 31-12-2009 as at Annexure-C, which gives an option to the dealer to obtain a delivery note in Form VAT 505 or Form VAT 515 for transportation of goods and to permit the petitioners to issue delivery note manually.
The matter was heard in part on 2-7-2014 and 4-7-2014.
In view of the difficulties which the petitioners are stated to have faced in switching over to the new system vide Annexure-D, respondent 2 was directed to display the operation. Accordingly, the officials of respondent 2 gave a demo of the operation of the software relating to the notification as at Annexure-D, which was viewed in video conference room of this Bench by me as well as Sri Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Sri M. Keshavareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. An objective and paperless self-policing system for tax compliance has been introduced. Later, when the matter was taken up for further hearing, in view of the advanced software which has been brought in and it being hassle free and also user-friendly, in the matter of implementation of the impugned notification as at Annexure-D, Sri Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned Advocate for the petitioners, submitted that, on account of the fact that the 2nd respondent has introduced user-friendly M-Sugama option, these writ petitions may be disposed of as not pressed.
Submission of the learned Counsel is recorded and the writ petitions are disposed of as not pressed.
No costs.