|
THE MADRAS ELECTRIC TRADES ASSOCIATION
(REGD. UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGN. ACT NO:XXI OF 1860)
93, GOVINDAPPA NAICKEN STREET, II FLOOR,CHENNAI-600 001.
TELEFAX:25390360,TOUCHTEL PH:42167776.
E-mail:meta@airtelbroadband.in, Website:www.metachennai.com |
| CIRCULAR NO:66/2009. DATED:03-10-2009 |
| |
| To |
| |
| All the Members of Our Association. |
| |
| Dear Sir, |
| |
| We are pleased to communicate the gist of the judgment reported, in VST 24 Volume 6, Page No. 510, for your kind information and guidance. |
| |
| Thanking You, |
| Yours Faithfully, |
| FOR THE MADRAS ELECTRIC TRADES ASSOCIATION, |
| |
| [CHANCHAL RAJ KHIMSURA] |
| HON. GENL. SECRETARY. |
| |
[2009] 24 VST 510 (karn) |
| |
[IN THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] |
BATA INDIA LIMITED |
V |
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
AUDIT 31, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER
|
| |
N. K. PATIL J. |
| |
February 11, 2008. |
| |
| HF Assessee |
| |
VALUE ADDED TAX – NATURAL JUSTICE – REASSESSMENT – NO OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING GIVEN BEFORE PASSING REASSESSMENT ORDERS – ORDERS OF REASSESSMENT AND SUBSEQUENT NOTICE OF DEMAND SETASIDE – KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 (32 of 2004), s. 39(1). |
| |
On writ petition challenging the reassessment orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner under section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and the subsequent notice of demand on the ground that the reassessment orders were passed on the petitioner without considering its objections to the reassessment notice requesting personl hearing in the matter: |
| |
Held, that the reassessment orders showed the Deputy Commissioner had passed the reassessment orders without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth its case. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had categorically stated in the objections that, personal hearing might be given to it to substantiate its case. But the Deputy Commissioner had not considered the objections filed by the petitioner and had not conducted proper inquiry in strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules. Therefore the orders of reassessment and the notice of demand were liable to be set aside. (see paras 4 and 6). |
| |
|
|
