SUMA OIL AGENCIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the ex-parte re-assessment order dated 20.02.2018 and consequential demand notice dated 03.10.2018 passed by respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 relating to the tax periods 2012-2013.

(2.) The petitioner was a registered dealer under the provision of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003(hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). It is submitted that the petitioner was issued with re-assessment notice relating to the tax period 2012-2013 by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) - 5.2 to which the petitioner has suitably replied and has produced the books of accounts before the said authority. It appears that subsequently, re-assessment notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)- 5.5 to reassess the assessee. It transpires that the petitioner has brought to the notice of the said authority inasmuch as earlier notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Audit) - 5.2 relating to the very same tax periods. Despite the same, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-5.5 has passed the ex-parte re-assessment order. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Ex-facie it appears that the assignment note issued to the DCCT (Audit)-5.2 relating to the tax periods 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 has been considered to be the assignment issued even to the tax period 2012-2013, by the said authority resulting in issuance of re-assessment notice to reassess the assessee under the provisions of the Act for the tax period 2012-13. On the reply filed by the petitioner to the notice issued by the DCCT (Audit 5.5), an endorsement dated 14.12.2016 has been issued by the said authority - DCCT (Audit)-5.5) bringing these aspects to the notice of the petitioner, more particularly, the assessment under VAT and GST tax period 2012-2013 being assigned to the DCCT (Audit)- 5.5, Bengaluru. The jurisdiction of the officers to proceed with the reassessment relating to the tax period 2012-2013 was not clear amongst the concerned authorities. The ex-parte re-assessment order now impugned certainly deserves to be set aside for the reason that assessee had appeared before DCCT (Audit)-5.2, Bengaluru, pursuant to the re- assessment notice issued by the said authority relating to the tax period in question, if that be the position, the DCCT (Audit)-5.2 ought to have transferred the proceedings initiated by him to the competent authority, assigned with the jurisdiction. That having not been done, the petitioner is made to suffer.