Allowed

Kumar Engineers v. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2021WP/5620/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka qua shed an impugned tax assessment order and demand notice on the grounds of violation of natural justice due to non-disclosure of revenue intelligence documents and non-con sideration of objections, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order and demand notice were set aside and the matter remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law.

Kumar Engineers Vs the Assistant Commissioner of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.5620 OF 2020 (T-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KUMAR ENGINEERS REDDY BUILDING, OPP. ROYAL APARTMENT, SIDDAHALLI ROAD, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE -560 073 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROP. UDAY KSHIRSAGAR AGED 48 YEARS

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI K.M.SHIVAYOGISWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (AUDIT) 6.8, DGSTO-6, NO.488, KIADB BUILDING, 3^RD FLOOR, 14^TH CROSS, 4^TH PHASE, PEENYA 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE -560 058

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES(ENF), SOUTH ZONE, 3^RD FLOOR, 'B' BLOCK, VTK-2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE- 560 047

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. HEMAKUMAR, AGA)

¶15

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND NOTICE FOR THE PERIOD 2012-13 PASSED BY THE R-1 BEARING NO.T NO.2495 DTD: 13.11.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-T AND U RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶17

²

¶18

ORDER

¶19

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure – T dated 13.11.2019 and the consequential Demand Notice at Annexure – U dated 13.11.2019 and for other reliefs.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶21

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.47250-47251/2018 dated 15.11.2018, wherein this Court quashed the re-assessment order and remitted the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh by directing the petitioner to appear before the Assessment Officer. It is submitted that in pursuance of the same, petitioner submitted his reply on 06.12.2018 along with documents. Thereafter, the respondents issued an Endorsement dated 08.08.2019 and

¶22

³

¶23

called upon the petitioner to file his reply and in response thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply on 14.08.2019. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the petitioner submitting his replies and producing documents, apart from the fact that the same have not been considered or appreciated by the respondents prior to passing the impugned assessment order, the respondents have also wrongly and erroneously placed reliance upon information / documents said to have been collected from the Revenue Intelligence Department without furnishing the same to the petitioner nor giving him any opportunity in this regard and consequently, the impugned order passed by the respondents being violative of principles of natural justice deserves to be quashed.

¶24

Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for

¶26

the petitioner, in the backdrop of the earlier round of litigation and the replies submitted by the petitioner, non-

¶27

⁴

¶28

consideration of the objections and documents produced by the petitioner and placing reliance upon the Revenue Intelligence Report referred to in the impugned order without providing / furnishing copies of the same to the petitioner and giving him an opportunity to have his say on the said documents and hearing him is clearly violative of principles of natural justice and consequently, on this ground alone, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the respondents deserves to be quashed and the matter remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law and by issuing certain directions in this regard.

¶29

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) Petition is hereby allowed.

¶32

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-J dated 13.11.2019 and consequently, the Demand notice at Annexure-U dated 13.11.2019 are hereby set aside.

¶33

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the 1^st respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law after considering the objections and documents already

¶34

⁵

¶35

produced by the petitioner and additional objections and documents, if any, to be produced by the petitioner.

¶36

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to request the respondents to furnish the details of any of the documents as referred to in the impugned order.

¶37

(v) Upon such a request being made by the petitioner, the respondents shall furnish the same to the petitioner expeditiously so as to enable the petitioner to file his reply/objections to the same.

¶38

(vi) In the event, the petitioner makes a request, pursuant to which, the respondent furnishes the said documents to the petitioner and the petitioner submits his reply to the same, the 1^st respondent shall consider the entire material on record including all the documents and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶39

(vii) Petitioner is directed to appear before the 1^st respondent on 17.01.2022 for proceeding further in the matter.

¶40

SD/- JUDGE

¶41

Srl.

Kumar Engineers v. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Engineers 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

The Management of M/S Veer-O-Metals Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Secretary

Vijayanagara Institute of Medical Sciences Vs Assessing Officer

Marvell India Private Limited Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Vs the Recovery Officer (Central Circle)

Katerra India Private Limited Vs Assistant Director of Income-Tax

Smt. S Lavanya Sridhar Vs the State of Karnataka