J M C PROJECTS Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ petitioner who is a dealer under the provisions of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 is complaining that a non competent authority is delving into the affairs of the petitioner in respect of the concluded assessment for the years April 2005 - March, 06, April 2006 - March, 07, April 2007 - March 08, by virtually holding a roving enquiry into the concluded assessment; that it is not permissible for the second respondent - the Commercial Tax Officer audit -13, DVO -1, Gandhinagar, Bangalore - 9 - to examine the matters in such a manner; that the respondent is neither competent nor the prescribed authority to examine the concluded assessments which are to be reopened; that the proceedings are one without jurisdiction and therefore the communications at Annexures U1, U2, V and X in the series are incompetent and not valid; such proposal and action are required to be quashed.

(2.) SUBMISSION of Sri Sarangan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that assessment for these years had been finalised by the prescribed authority, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; that the first respondent, on elaborate examination of the return filed and on participation by the petitioner in the proceedings before the first respondent, the assessments had been finalised; that in respect of such matters while there was scope to reopen the assessment by the prescribed authority under Section 39 of the Act, the second respondent seeking to assume jurisdiction under the Act, to reassess, is an act lacking in jurisdiction; that the second respondent being an official inferior in rank to the first respondent/cannot be allowed to act in a manner prejudicial to the petitioner; that the second respondent is starting a roving enquiry into the assessments that had been concluded and assessed by the first respondent and therefore the impugned notices are without jurisdiction and are required to be quashed. Learned Counsel in this context has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 39 of the Act providing for re assessment to tax any escaped turnover.

(3.) WHILE an examination of the impugned communications only shows that the proceeding if at all lead to reopening of assessment in terms of section 39 of the Act, the argument that the second respondent lacks competence or jurisdiction to issue such notices is taken care of by the apprisal of the information to the petitioner in the penultimate para of communication dated 5. 7. 2008 wherein the second respondent has intimated the petitioner that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has conferred on the Second respondent the jurisdiction for reassessment under section 39 of the Act.