SOWMYASHREE TRADERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reassessment orders dated 5-9-2013 passed under Section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KVAT Act') as well as under Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CST Act') read with Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act by the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit and Recovery), Tiptur for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2011-2012 (Annexures-D, F, H, K, M and P and E, G, J, L, N and Q respectively) are assailed in these writ petitions. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner was registered as a dealer under the provisions of the KVAT Act, 2003 as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner was engaged in the business of trading in agricultural produce in APMC Yard, Tiptur. The petitioner gave an intimation of closure of his business by a letter dated 22-12-2010 before the concerned authority. The closure was with effect from 30-11-2010. It is stated that the petitioner also surrendered his registration certificate under the two Acts. When the matter stood thus, 3rd respondent issued notice to the petitioner on 1-6-2013 with regard to inspection of place of the business and to verify the books of accounts for the aforesaid tax periods. The petitioner is stated to have submitted his letter dated 13-6-2013 seeking 15 days time to produce the books of accounts, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-A. Subsequently, petitioner sought for fixation of a date for verification of books of accounts by his further communication dated 19-7-2013, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-B. Petitioner later visited the office of the 3rd respondent on 19-9-2013 making a similar request. However, in the interregnum, the impugned reassessment orders were passed by the 3rd respondent-authority. Assailing those orders, these writ petitions have been filed.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and learned AGA for respondents and perused the material on record.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned orders have been passed without verifying the books of accounts and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file his objections to the reassessment proceedings. It is therefore contended that the impugned orders are in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to appear before the 3rd respondent so as to enable him to produce the relevant books of accounts and put forth his case, by quashing the impugned orders is the submission of the petitioner's Counsel.