Disposed

M/S K.M. Parvathamma v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2023WP/101055/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. The Court observed that since an application for rectification under Section 69 of the Karnataka VAT Act was pending, the writ court had no jurisdiction to intervene. The Court directed the authority to expedite the rectification process.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable; authority directed to expedite the pending rectification application.

M/S K.M. Parvathamma Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14053 WP No. 101055 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 101055 OF 2016 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S K.M. PARVATHAMMA # 8-35, SECOND LINK KROAD,

¶9

PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583103 REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI.SREENIVASAMURTHY.S, S/O S.N.SHADAKSHARAPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS, RES: SECOND LINK ROAD, BALLARI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NARAYAN G RASALKAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally
signed by
V N
V N BADIGER
BADIGER Date:
2023.12.06
11:21:37
+0530

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERMENTN OF KARNATAKA, VIDHAA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT AND RECOVERY), VANIJYE THERIGE BHAVAN, D.DEVARAJ URS EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AND LOCAL VAT OFFICER, 490, BUDA COMPLEX, MOTI CIRCLE, BALLARI.

¶17

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT 2), BALLARI.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14053 WP No. 101055 of 2016

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:QUASH THE IMPUGNED RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED:01.03.2014 RESPECTIVELY PASSED THE RESPONDENT NO.2, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT AND RECOVERY) DAVANGERE, FOR THE YEAR 2006-2007 SEPARATELY UNDER THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 AS PER ANNXUER-F ALONG WITH ITS CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND NOTICE DATED:01.03.2014 IN FORM 180 AS PER ANNEXURE-G, AND TO ALSO QUASH THE IMPUGNED RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED:01.03.2014, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE YEAR 2006-2007 SEPARATELY UNDER THE CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT, 1956 AS PER ANNEXURE-D ALONG WITH ITS CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND NOTICE DATED:01.03.2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-E, BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAW.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well

¶24

as learned AGA for the respondents.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

¶26

learned AGA for the respondents jointly submit that Annexure-F is an order appealable under Section 69(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶28

aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2014 at Annexure-F, the petitioner filed an application for rectification of the

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14053 WP No. 101055 of 2016

¶30

order invoking Section 69 of the Act. This being the position, this court is of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable. The authority before whom the application under Section 69 of the Act is pending has to consider the application and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.

¶31

It is brought to the notice of this court that this court vide order dated 25.04.2016 has granted conditional stay order subject to the petitioner executing a bank guarantee to an extent of 30% of the amount due within three weeks from that day. If the conditional interim order is in force in terms of the order dated 25.04.2016, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the interim order till disposal of the rectification application, which is pending consideration.

¶32

It is further made clear that the authority before whom the rectification application is pending consideration shall expedite the hearing and decide the

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14053 WP No. 101055 of 2016

¶34

application preferably within three months from the date

¶35

of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

It is further made clear that this court has not

¶37

expressed anything on the merits of the claim made by either of the parties.

¶38

With these observations, writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

MBS Ct:an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47

M/S K.M. Parvathamma v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S K.M. Parvathamma v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veerabhadrappa v Pattanshetti Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. B. Basavanappa S/O Onkarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Jai Kisan Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangh Niyamith Vs the State of Karnataka

Indusind Media and Communication Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S.Jituri Cement Products Vs Commercial Tax Officer (ENF-3)

M/S Popular Concrete (P) Ltd., Vs the Assistant Commissioner