P. GIRI RAJU Vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a sole proprietary concern engaged in the works contract mainly for Government of Karnataka and its social wings and is registered as a dealer under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short the 'Act'). For the Assessment Years 2008 -09 and 2009 -10, reassessment proceedings came to be initiated by respondent proposition notices came to be issued calling upon petitioner to produce books of accounts and on the ground of ill health petitioner did not appear before Authority and submitted representations dated 20.02.2015 and 10.03.2015, Annexures -B and A respectively requesting for extension of time to produce book of accounts and records sought for in the proposition notices dated 23.01.2015. On account of respondent allegedly refusing to receive the said representations, petitioner claims to have forwarded the same by registered post on 28.02.2015. However, assessing authority on the basis of available material framed reassessment orders on 28.02.2015, vide Annexures -D and E respectively and consequential demand notices, Annexures -G and H also came to be issued to petitioner raising tax demands. Alleging non payment of tax demanded under said demand notices, respondent initiated recovery proceedings and issued notices under Section 45 of the Act to the Garnishees and also attaching bank accounts of petitioner - Firm vide Annexures -K and J respectively. On coming to its knowledge of such attachment through its debtors, petitioner is said to have submitted representation to respondent on 10.04.2015, Annexure -L seeking withdrawal of demand notices as well as garnishees notices issued under Section 45 of the Act. Simultaneously petitioner also filed applications on 13.04.2015 vide Annexures -M and N seeking for rectification of alleged mistake in reassessment order and on receipt of said applications endorsement came to be issued to petitioner on 13.04.2015, Annexure -O indicating thereunder that petitioner can avail the remedy of filing appeal. Hence, petitioner has sought for withdrawal of recovery proceedings and quashing of demand notices dated 28.02.2015 and for direction to respondent to dispose of rectification applications, Annexures -M and N.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Sri. K.G. Kamath, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. T.K. Vedamurthy, learned HCGP appearing for respondent who has submitted his arguments on instructions from respondent present before the Court and by making available the original records.

(3.) PER contra, Sri. T.K. Vedamurthy, learned HCGP appearing for respondent/State would contend that on account of reassessment orders passed on 28.02.2015 not being able to be served personally on petitioner due to petitioner refusing to receive the same as reported which was also on account of petitioner/assessee being unavailable at the address indicated in the assessment orders as was informed by the Official of respondent office namely Group 'D' Official, who was deputed to serve the assessment order and on account of this factual position it resulted in effecting service through affixture on the same day and in support of his contention he has made available the mahazar drawn at the spot which is at page No. 16 of the original records. He would also contend that after such service of notice by affixture respondent/Authority has initiated recovery proceedings by issuing notices under Section 45 of the Act calling upon the debtors of petitioner to pay such amounts held by them on account of petitioners to be paid to respondent/Authority by issuing the garnishee/recovery notices, Annexures -J and K respectively. It is also contended that in order to ensure that assessment orders are served on petitioner, it was forwarded by speed post on 02.03.2015 itself which was also returned unserved and as such, respondent/Assessing Officer has forwarded the assessment orders by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due on 10.04.2015, which is duly received by the assessee and as such, it is contended that there is no infirmity, whatsoever, in the impugned notices or orders passed by respondent for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction. Hence, he prays for dismissal of writ petitions.