ALD AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ADMN.) AND COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE orders of the 1st respondent authority dated 29.10.2013 (Annexures -E1 -E4) for the tax periods December 2005 to March 2006, April 2006 to March 2007, April 2007 to March 2008 and April 2008 to March 2009 respectively passed under Section 63A of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) are assailed in these Writ Petitions. The consequential demand notices dated 29.10.2013 (Annexures -F1 -F4) for the aforesaid periods are also assailed in these Writ Petitions. Briefly stated the facts according to the petitioner are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of leasing motor cars to various corporate customers, sale of used motor cars and fleet management services. It is a registered dealer (non -resident) under the provisions of the Act in the State of Karnataka. For the aforementioned tax periods, reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 39(1) of the Act. Subsequently, those proceedings were dropped by order dated 23.09.2009 by accepting the revised returns filed by the petitioner and allowing the benefit of input tax credit after verifying its claims with its books of account. These orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. These orders were subjected to suo moto revisional jurisdiction of the 1st respondent under Section 63A read with Section 47(3) of the Act. The 1st respondent had issued notice of the revisional proceedings to the petitioner which was served on the petitioner. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noted that in response to the notice of the revisional authority, the petitioner did not file any reply. Thereafter the impugned orders dated 29.10.2013 were passed in respect of the aforesaid tax periods. Being aggrieved by those orders, Writ Petitions have been preferred.

(2.) I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned AGA for respondents who appears on advance notice and perused the material on record.

(3.) PER contra, learned AGA appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order by contending that although sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner, it was not availed and having no other alternative, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned orders which would not call for any interference by this Court.