Partly allowed

M/S. Watchdog Security v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2022WP/10766/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an endorsement rejecting a rectification application without a hearing. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the endorsement, and remanded the matter to the lower authority to reconsider the application after affording the petitioner a personal hearing under Section 69(1) of the Karnataka VAT Act, 2003.

What did the court decide?

The endorsement dated 22.09.2021 is set aside; the matter is remanded to Respondent no.1 to consider the application for rectification after hearing all parties.

M/S. Watchdog Security Vs Joint Commissioner of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION No.10766 OF 2022 (T-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. WATCHDOG SECURITY H O NO.301, 3^RD FLOOR KALPAVRIKSH SOCIETY KARVENAGAR PUNE MAHARASTRA REGISTERED BUSINESS UNDER KVAT ACT EARLIER LOCATED AT NO.3/1 1^ST FLOOR, 4^TH CROSS RAJARAJESHWARI TEMPLE ROAD AYYAPPA NAGAR, K R PURAM BENGALURU 560 036 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. VEENA J. KAMATH, ADV. FOR M/S KAMATH AND KAMATH ASSTS.)

¶9

AND:

¶10

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS)-5 2^ND FLOOR BMTC, TTMC ‘B’ BLOCK SHANTINAGAR BENGALURU 560 047

¶11

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT) 5.9 ‘B’ BLOCK, 6^TH FLOOR DVO-5 KORAMANGALA BANGALORE 560 047

¶12

... RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI.K.HEMA KUMAR, AGA)

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD. 22.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ETC.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Petitioner is engaged in the execution of works contract of supply and installation of security systems and fire fighting equipments. In this regard, the petitioner had purchased certain goods from an inter state distributor from Pune during the assessment year 2013-14. The said transaction is subject to Karnataka Value Added Tax. In this regard, respondent no.2 initiated reassessment proceedings against the petitioner under Section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Respondent no.2 vide its order dated 09.04.2019 determined the total turnover of the petitioner to be at Rs.57,25,746/- and levied additional tax @ 5% along with consequential interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent no.1 which was partly allowed and the taxable turnover was reduced to Rs.46,69,300/-. However, it was observed in the order that the said

¶19

¶20

turnover has to be levied tax at 14.5%. On the ground that

¶21

the appeal was not preferred by the authority but the assessee and tax at 14.5% on the turnover could not have been ordered by respondent no.1 and it ought to have been at 5% as determined by respondent no.2, the petitioner preferred an application to have the same corrected before respondent no.1. However, the same has been rejected by respondent no.1 by an endorsement dated 22.09.2021 bearing No.VAT AP:164/19-20 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed.

¶22

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned endorsement is issued by respondent no.1 without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶23

Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for the respondents submits that the statute prescribes the tax to be levied at 14.5% and not 5% as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and there is no error in the order dated 15.12.2020 passed by respondent no.1 in No.VAT:AP:

¶24

¶25

164/19-20 vide Annexure-B to the writ petition and it does not call for any rectification and the prayer of the petitioner to have the same rectified has been rightly rejected. However, the learned AGA admits that there was no personal hearing granted to the petitioner.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if a personal hearing were to have been granted, the petitioner would have shown the relevant provision of law and would have convinced respondent no.1.

¶27

Admittedly, the petitioner has not been given an opportunity of personal hearing and her request has been rejected. Thus, on the short question, the petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 22.09.2021 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded back to respondent no.1 to consider the application filed by the petitioner under Section 69(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for rectification after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence, the following:

¶28

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) The endorsement dated 22.09.2021 in No.VAT AP:164/19-20 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition is hereby set aside;

¶31

(ii) The matter is remanded back to respondent no.1Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-5, Bengaluru with a direction to consider the application of the petitioner filed under Section 69(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for rectification on 06.02.2021 after hearing all the parties concerned;

¶32

(iii) It is hereby made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case and respondent no.1 shall consider the case on merits and take appropriate decision in accordance with law;

¶33

(iv) The parties are directed to appear before respondent no.1 on 20^th June 2022 without any further notice;

¶34

(v) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

hkh.

M/S. Watchdog Security v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Watchdog Security v. Joint 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

Sri Manobalu K Vs the Director General Training

Sri Mahalasa Shikshana Samithi (Regd) Vs the Principal Secretary to the Govt

D. Mantraa Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

M/S. Incadea India Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Sri.Ramaiah Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt Vijayalakshmi Vs Sri Prakash S B