WIPRO INFRASTRUCTURE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.12.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 9(2) of the CST Act, 1956 read with Section 36 of the KVAT Act, 2003 and the consequential demand notice dated 29.12.2018, inter alia, seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's application for rectification/revision dated 04.01.2019 and 18.01.2019 at Annexures - M and P respectively.

(2.) The petitioner is the registered dealer under the provisions of Central Sale Tax Act, 1956 ('CST Act' for short) and the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act' for short). It is the grievance of the petitioner that the physical Forms - C and F submitted by the petitioner on 02.11.2018 in reply to the proposition notice dated 11.07.2016 and the revised proposition notice dated 17.10.2018 were not accepted by the Assessing Officer - respondent No.2 and it was directed to upload the same on the electronic portal. Accordingly, the said Forms were uploaded by the Assessee on 01.01.2019, but the respondent No.2 passed the order impugned on 29.12.2018 creating a huge demand of Rs.25,57,39,936/- for the tax periods April 2013 to July 2013.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel Sri. N. Venkataraman, representing the learned counsel on record for the petitioner would submit that the files relating to the tax periods August 2013 to March 2014 are pending before the Assessing Authority at Mysuru in view of the scheme of demerger arrangement. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the order impugned suffers from the vice of arbitrariness as no sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner to upload the Forms - C and F on electronic portal and the Assessing Officer having directed the assessee to upload the same on electronic portal ought not to have proceeded to conclude the assessment hurriedly, since the time limit was available until 31.03.2019. It is further submitted that in view of the file pertaining to the assessee is pending for the other tax periods before the Assessing Officer at Mysuru, the present assessment proceedings can be transferred to the Assessing Officer at Mysuru and a request has been made by the assessee before the Commissioner to the said effect. It is also argued that the source of power for transferring the case to the Commissioner being contemplated under Section 59 of the KVAT Act, 2003, the Commissioner - respondent No.1 is required to consider the representation of the petitioner to transfer the present proceedings as sought for.