Allowed

N. K. Shashikanth v. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Karnataka HC30 Mar 2021WP/5364/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Bengaluru allowed a writ petition quashing an endorsement rejecting a rectification application in tax reassessment proceedings. The court set aside the dated 24.06.2015, remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the petitioner's rectification request, and condoned the delay due to medical grounds.

What did the court decide?

Endorsement dated 24.06.2015 set aside; matter remanded for fresh reconsideration within two months.

N. K. Shashikanth Vs the Assistant… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.5364/2021(T – RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

N.K. Shashikanth Civil Contractor, Aged about 47 years, Nallahalli Village, Uyyamballi Hobli, Kanakapura – 562 126. ... Petitioner (By Sri. Shankare Gowda M.N., Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Audit – 2.1, DVO-2, ‘A’ Block, 5^th Floor, Koramangala, VTK-2, Bengaluru – 560 047.

¶11

Present Address: ACCT (Audit)-2.1, DGSTO-02, No.642, Ground Floor, Pioneer Plaza, Kenchanahalli Main Road, Near Gopalan Mall,

¶12

¶13

Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 008.

¶14

…Respondent (By Sri. K. Hema Kumar, AGA)

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the ex-parte reassessment order and demand notice dated 22.12.2014 Annexure-A, endorsement dated 24.06.2015 Annexure-B, notice dated 28.12.2018 Annexure-C, endorsement dated 30.11.2020 Annexure-D and notice dated 06.02.2021 Annexure-E issued by the respondent in the petitioners case and etc.,

¶16

This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner has called in question the order of

¶19

exparte re-assessment and the demand notice dated 22.12.2014 and so also endorsement dated 24.06.2015 as well as the notice dated 28.12.2018 and the endorsement at Annexure-D and notice at Annexure-E.

¶20

2. The petitioner submits that an order of re-

¶21

assessment came to be passed on 22.12.2014 by the authorities with respect of the period of April 2010 to

¶22

¶23

March 2011 whereby demand notice was directed to be issued with respect to the tax, penalty and interest amounting to Rs.3,30,627/-. It is noticed that in the assessment order TDS claims were disallowed as no TDS certificates were furnished.

¶24

It comes out from the facts that the petitioner has made out a request letter dated 24.06.2015 submitting that he has copies of the TDS certificates and that in light of his ill-health he had requested for reconsideration of the order of reassessment passed. It is not in dispute that this communication has been made as found in the records of the respondent-authorities as affirmed by the learned counsel appearing for the Department. The petitioner submits that letter dated 24.06.2015 is to be construed to be an application for rectification under Section 69 of the KVAT Act, 2003.

¶25

¶26

The petitioner has called in question the

¶27

endorsement dated 24.06.2015 at Annexure-B whereby the request of the petitioner for rectification was rejected as original of the TDS certificates were not furnished and that the correctness of the assertion of TDS certificates was still to be verified. Subsequently, it is noticed that fresh demand has been made pursuant to the assessment order dated 22.12.2014 and further proceedings have proceeded with. Fresh application for rectification has been made out by the petitioner which specifically has been rejected as per the endorsement dated 30.11.2020 holding that the application for rectification filed by the petitioner on 30.11.2020 would not permit the authorities to reopen the reassessment proceedings by passing rectification order beyond the period of five years from the date of order dated 22.12.2014.

¶28

¶29

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶30

contend that endorsement at Annexure-D as well as application dated 30.11.2020 are superfluous in light of the application of 24.06.2015 which has been construed by the department to be one filed for rectification as per the endorsement dated 24.06.2015 and accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that validity of the endorsement at Annexure-B needs to be decided and consequently relief be granted.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they have the original TDS certificate which has been verified at the instance of the respondent authorities and that in light of the grounds of ill health as made out, the endorsement dated 24.06.2015 is to be set aside and matter is remitted for consideration before the authority.

¶32

¶33

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶34

upon instruction submits that TDS certificate, copy of which is enclosed at Annexures-L and M have been verified to have been validly issued.

¶35

Taking note of the medical grounds made

¶36

out in support of the request for reconsideration and reasons assigned to condone the delay in taking steps to file the present petition and also noting the submission that the original TDS certificate at Annexures-L and M are available and noticing the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the documents at Annexures-L and M have been verified to have been issued validly, case is made out for reconsideration of the matter.

¶37

It is made clear that the letter of the petitioner dated 24.06.2015 is to be construed as the application for rectification while noticing the

¶38

¶39

endorsement at Annexure-B the letter of 24.06.2015 is to be construed to be an application for rectification.

¶40

Accordingly, the endorsement at AnnexureB is set aside. Matter is remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The respondent to complete the reconsideration of the application dated 24.06.2015 within a period of two months from the date of release of this order.

¶41

The petitioner is at liberty to furnish such information and documents that would entitle the authority to take a considered decision as regards rectification application dated 24.06.2015 though it comes out from the records that the subsequent rectification application has been filed which has been disposed of as per the endorsement at Annexure-D dated 30.11.2020. In light of the application of the petitioner dated 24.06.2015 and the endorsement at

¶42

¶43

Annexure-B dated 24.06.2015 all further proceedings subsequent to the endorsement dated 24.06.2015 are superfluous and need not be commented upon. The delay in approaching this Court is condoned, taking note of the medical grounds as made out by the petitioner.

¶44

In light of disposal of the main petition I.A.No.1/2021 for dispensation of production of Certified copy of the Annexure-B does not survive for consideration.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

N. K. Shashikanth v. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. K. Shashikanth v. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sreedevi Infra Constructions Private Limited Vs M/S Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited

M/S Slv Estates Vs S K Janardhan Rao Salghur

M/S. Infinitum Hospitality Vs Mr. P. Venkatesan

Mrs Maina Agarwal Vs the Income Tax Officer

M/S Maba Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Sahasralingeshwara Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer