LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reassessment order under Section 39 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('the KVAT Act' for short) passed by respondent 3-Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit 1.4), dated 31-5-2014 is assailed in this writ petition. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner had filed its returns for the assessment year 2007-2008. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 39 of the Act by issuance of notice dated 18-4-2011 (Annexure-A). Reply to that notice was given by the petitioner on 29-4-2011. During the pendency of the proceedings, there have been several requests made by respondent 3 seeking details of various transactions that have taken place for the period in question and it is stated that the petitioner filed all the requisite details before respondent 3-authority. When the matter stood thus, on 27-5-2014, the petitioner filed its reply a copy of which is produced at Annexure-J seeking personal hearing in the matter. The grievance of the petitioner is that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner and instead, on 31-5-2014, the impugned order of reassessment was passed by respondent 3. That order is assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition.

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

(3.) My attention was drawn to various documents, which have been annexed to the writ petition, specifically Annexure-J, which is dated 27-5-2014, in which the petitioner had sought for personal hearing in the matter, so as to demonstrate before respondent 3-authority its position in the case. More particularly, with regard to Annexure-H and several other documents. The grievance of the petitioner is that no personal hearing was granted on that day or on subsequent days. As a result, there has been violation of principles of natural justice. It was also contended that certain dates mentioned in the impugned order are incorrect and the impugned order is not in accordance with law.