WATCHDOG SECURITY Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Sec. 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. Respondent no.2 vide its order dtd. 9/4/2019 determined the total turnover of the petitioner to be at Rs.57,25,746.00 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.46,69,300.00. However, it was observed in the order that the said turnover has to be levied tax at 14.5%. On the ground that 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 dtd. 22/9/2021 bearing No.VAT AP:164/19-20 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 dtd. 15/12/2020 passed by respondent no.1 in No.VAT:AP: 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.