BHIMA JEWELLERS Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are directed against the orders of reassessment dated 08.05.2012 passed under Sec. 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('the KVAT Act' for short) pertaining to the periods Feb. 2009 & March 2009, April 2009 to March 2010 and April 2010 to Sept. 2010 and consequential notices of demand dated 8.5.2012, copies of which are produced as Annexures-G to G5.

(2.) I have heard Shri R.V.Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri T.K.Vedamurthy, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents.

(3.) Two contentions were urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petitions. Firstly, the impugned reassessment orders are violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the books of accounts relating to the period in question were seized by the Income Tax authorities and the Reassessment Officer did not summon the said books of accounts though he was conferred with such a power under Sec. 87 of the KVAT Act read with Rule 173 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 ('the Rules' for short). The only other contention is that the prescribed authority i.e., the re-Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the reassessment orders. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgments of this Court reported in 35 STC 484 & 124 STC 423 and also the judgment of the Allahabad High Court reported in 76 STC 132.