CHISTY STEELS Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is seeking for quashing of reassessment order dated 15.02.2014, Annexure -N and the consequential demand notice issued on 15.02.2014 appended to the said reassessment order issued under Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. I have heard the arguments of Shri M.N. Shankregowda learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt. K. Vidyavati, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent.

(2.) PETITIONER is a registered dealer under the provisions of Karnataka Value Added Tax, Act 2003 (for short 'KVAT Act') which is a partnership carrying on its activities of trading in iron and steel products, namely H.R. Coils, Angles. M.S. Channels etc., having its registered office at Hubli. For the assessment year 2011 -12 petitioner claims to have purchased iron and steel from various registered dealers located at Bangalore and sold the same locally in the course of inter state trade and through consignment agent locally. Petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act on 18.12.2003 proposing to reassess the petitioner's case and also for levying penalty and interest on the ground that input tax has been claimed erroneously, on the purchases made from bogus and fraudulent dealers engaged in bill trading. Hence, it was proposed by respondent -authority to reject the petitioner's claim for input tax credit on the purchases made from dealers which according to respondent were alleged bogus dealers who had not filed the returns and paid the taxes accordingly. Respondent also proposed to treat the declared consignment sale of Rs. 2,16,00,000/ - as taxable turnover, proposing to levy tax at the rate of 5% along with interest and penalty, objections came to be filed by the petitioner to the said proposed notice on 22.01.2014. Petitioner also filed additional objections on 27.01.2014, vide Annexures -L and M respectively. Respondent having received the said objections proceeded to reject the same and pass an order of reassessment confirmed the demand made in the proposition notice and accordingly, has raised a demand for payment of tax of Rs. 23,28,176/ - by levying penalty of Rs. 2,32,818/ - and interest of Rs. 10,05,605/ - for the period April 2011 to March 2012.

(3.) THE impugned order has been passed by respondent in exercise of the power under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act, 2003. Against said order, an appeal is provided under the Act namely under Section 62 of the KVAT Act. Petitioner without exhausting the available, alternate and efficacious remedy has approached this Court, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction. Time and again it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that writ petition would not be maintainable when alternate remedy is available. It has been held in the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd., and another v. State of Orissa and another reported in : AIR 1983 SC 603 as follows: