WIPRO LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) by the petitioner against the judgment dated 20.06.2013 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT).

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this revision briefly stated are that the petitioner is a company, which is engaged in the activity of manufacture of soaps and other toiletries and is also engaged in trading activity in other goods such as electrical equipments. On commencement of the Act, the petitioner got itself registered as dealer and filed its monthly return in Form VAT-100 from tax period April 2005 under Section 35(1) of the Act and discharged applicable taxes. The petitioner filed audited accounts in the light of Section 31(4) read with Rule 34 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 and Form VAT-240 as it stood then for the year ending 2005-06. For the year ending 2006-07, the petitioner apart from filing monthly returns in Form VAT-100 also filed annual statement in Form VAT-115 in terms of newly inserted Section 31(5) read with Rule 34(4) of the Rules. The petitioner also got its account audited and furnished the audit report in newly prescribed Form VAT-240. The petitioner on the advise of statutory auditors also made payment of differential tax amounting to Rs.12,93,017/- on 20.05.2008 and furnished revised annual statement in Form VAT-115 showing the transactions as reflected in the books of accounts.

(3.) The Assessing Authority initiated audit proceedings and visited the premises of the petitioner and scrutinized books of accounts pertaining to financial year 2005-06 and 2006-07. A notice under Section 39(1) of the Act dated 21.08.2009 was issued to the petitioner proposing to re-assess the turnover for the tax period April 2005 to March 2006 inter alia on the ground that there were differences in figures declared in the monthly VAT returns filed in Form VAT-100 and the books of accounts maintained by the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon filed detailed objections to the aforesaid notice. The Assessing Authority issued a revised notice under Section 39(1) of the Act proposing to reject monthly returns filed in respect of tax periods (5 months) were there was short payment of tax by the petitioner and undertake re-assessment only in respect of said tax periods. The petitioner submitted a reply on 07.10.2009, in which inter alia it was stated that reassessment was to be done for the entire period 200506 and the officer could not pick and choose separately only two months where short payments were made and ignore two months where excess payments were made. The assessing authority however, rejected the objections of the petitioner and passed an order of reassessment on 21.10.2009 confirming the demand of tax, additional tax, interest and penalty in respect of tax periods where there was short payment of tax. Similarly, for the tax period 2007-08, the assessing authority initiated re-assessment proceedings and passed an order of re-assessment on 19.03.2010 under Section 39(1) of the Act.