CATERING INN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order of the second respondent-Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Bangalore, dated 26-3-2014 rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioner as well as the endorsement dated 19-4-2014 (Annexure-J) issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-third respondent herein (Annexure-K), are assailed in these writ petitions. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner being aggrieved by the order of reassessment passed under Section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('Act' for short) preferred appeals before the second respondent-Authority. Admittedly, these appeals were filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, which is thirty days from the date of receipt of the order passed under Section 39 of the Act. Petitioner had not filed any application seeking condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid appeals. Under the circumstances, notice under Rule 149 of the KVAT Rules in Form VAT 435, dated 3-12-2013 (Annexure-H) was issued to the petitioner. Despite receipt of that notice, petitioner did not take steps to rectify defects in the memorandum of appeals filed by the petitioner inasmuch as the application seeking condonation of delay in filing those appeals were not filed. Hence, by the impugned order dated 26-3-2014, the appeals were rejected. Thereafter, on 19-4-2014, an endorsement was issued with regard to recovery of the outstanding tax dues. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26-3-2014 as well as the endorsement, these petitions have been filed.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents who appears on advance notice and perused the material on record.

(3.) Although, learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 149 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, to contend that the procedure prescribed under sub-rule (4) had not been followed in the instant case and after the issuance of Form VAT 435, the impugned order dated 26-3-2014 was passed, nevertheless, he contended that the petitioner is willing to rectify all defects in the memorandum of appeals including filing of the applications for condonation of delay.