ETA MELCO ENGG CO PVT LTD Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these cases, the Petitioner has called in question the validity of the order at Annexure 'A' dated 24.2.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the 4th Respondent herein conferring jurisdiction on the first Respondent to reassess the Petitioner under Section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('Act' for short) and to impose penalty and demand payment of interest. Consequent upon the power conferred by the 4th Respondent as above, the first Respondent has passed the orders of reassessment and penalty under Section 39(1) and 72(2) of the Act as per Annexures 'B', 'B1', 'B2' 'B3', 'C', 'Cl', 'C2' and 'C3' all dated 13.4.2011.

(2.) Sri. A. Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that the power conferred by the 4th Respondent in favour of the first Respondent is invalid and unauthorised. It is argued that the Petitioner has filed correct and complete returns, which have been accepted all along by the Assessing Authority. Therefore, question of reassessment of the Petitioner under Section 39(1) of the Act and levy of penalty under Section 72(2) of the Act does not arise.

(3.) On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the Respondents submits that on the recommendations made by the first Respondent that the Petitioner has evaded payment of tax and the need to initiate reassessment proceedings against it, the 4th Respondent has authorised the first Respondent to initiate proceedings for reassessment and to impose penalty and demand payment of interest. It is further argued that if the Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of reassessment and penalty as per Annexures 'B', 'B1', 'B2', 'B3', 'C', 'Cl', 'C2', and 'C3' all dated 13.4.2011, it has to file appeals challenging the said order because the alternative remedy available to the Petitioner is not only adequate but also efficacious in nature and that the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in the writ petition.