INTERNATIONAL FLAVOUR AND FRAGRANCES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has assailed the order of reassessment dated 24-2-2014 (Annexure-D) passed under Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with Sections 39(1), 36(1) and 72(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and also the endorsement dated 23-6-2014 (Annexure-G). Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner filed its returns under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Reassessment proceedings in respect of those returns for the year 2012-2013 were taken up by the 3rd respondent-authority and notice dated 12-2-2014 was issued to the petitioner. In response to which petitioner appeared before the authority on 20-2-2014 and sought for four weeks time to produce all the documents. That request was turned down. However, on that date, three days time upto 22-2-2014 was granted to the petitioner to file all the documents. On 22-2-2014, the authorised representative of the petitioner did not appear before the 3rd respondent-authority and consequently, no documents were produced on 22-2-2014. Thereafter, the impugned order of reassessment was passed two days later i.e., on 24-2-2014. Subsequently, petitioner filed an application for rectification of the mistakes in the said order under Section 69 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act. On that application, the impugned endorsement dated 23-6-2014 has been issued directing the petitioner to pay the full tax dues as stated in the Circular dated 20-6-1996 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, failing which the rectification proceedings would not be initiated. The impugned reassessment order and the endorsement dated 23-6-2014 are impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA who appears for the respondents and perused the material on record.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent did not grant sufficient time to produce the 'C' Forms and 'F' Forms for the purpose of passing of the reassessment order and that only three days time was granted which was wholly insufficient to produce those documents. It was contended that in the absence of those documents, the reassessment order is erroneous and that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to file the documents i.e., 17 'F' Forms and 23 'C' Forms, so that the 3rd respondent-authority could consider those documents and pass a fresh order of reassessment. In this context, it was also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if an opportunity is given to the petitioner to appear before the 3rd respondent in order to produce the documents, then the petitioner would not press the application seeking rectification of the impugned order of reassessment.