(1.) PETITIONERS have assailed notification dated 29.4.2014 (Annexure -A) which has been issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka) ("Commissioner" for the sake of brevity) exercising powers under first proviso to sub -section (1) of Section 35 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act ('Act' for short), 2003. By the said notification, the Commissioner has notified those dealers whose total turnover is fifty lakh rupees and above during tax periods of the year ending 31st day of March 2014 or whose cumulative total turnover is fifty lakh rupees and above in the tax periods of any subsequent year, shall furnish certain details electronically through internet on or before 20th day of the succeeding month. The said notification has certain annexures giving details to be uploaded by the notified dealers. Petitioners have also assailed Annexures - B to E, which are formats which have been issued by second respondent - Commissioner for the purpose of entering the details electronically in terms of the impugned notification.
(2.) PETITIONERS are stated to be dealers in rice bran and have been registered under the provisions of the Act. First petitioner has stated that he purchases rice bran and maize both from dealers registered under the Act as well as from unregistered dealers. He sells the said agro -products to both registered as well as unregistered dealers. According to him, maize is totally exempt from tax under the Act. Therefore, no tax is required to be paid for maize, but for the purchase of rice bran from registered dealers petitioner pays tax. Thus both input tax and output tax is computed in respect of rice bran. Second petitioner is stated to be a dealer in Rice Bran, which is wholly exempt from tax under the provisions of the Act. Even then second petitioner is required to file his monthly returns as stipulated under Section 35 of the Act. By the impugned notification dated 29.4.2014, petitioners have to disclose certain details. Contending that the disclosure of those details would affect their business and hence it is violative of Article 265, Article 14 and Article 19(1) of the Constitution, these writ petitions have been filed, assailing Annexures A to E.
(3.) IT was firstly contended by petitioners' counsel that the impugned notification, which has been issued in exercise of the first proviso to sub -section (1) of Section 35 of the Act, is an instance of excessive delegation of power granted under the Act by the legislature. He drew my attention to Section 35 of the Act, which deals with filing of returns and the first proviso which enables the Commissioner to identify specified dealers who may be notified by him for the purpose of filing of returns in the prescribed format electronically through internet in the manner specified in the said notification. In this context, it was submitted that the specification made in the impugned notification has no reference to sub -section 12 of Section 2 of the Act, which defines specified dealers and thus classifying the dealers on the basis of their monthly turnover is incorrect.