M/S.KOTHARI BUILDERS vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

PDF · subscribers
WP/42768/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01077410201125 July 2012Bench: H.G.RAMESH3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner should avail the statutory remedy of appeal. The demand notice was considered premature as the assessment orders had not become final.

What were the facts?

The petitioner challenged assessment orders and a demand notice. The petitioner's counsel did not dispute that the assessment orders were appealable under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979.

What were the issues?

Whether the petitioner should be allowed to directly approach the High Court when a statutory remedy of appeal is available. Whether the legality of a demand notice can be examined when the underlying assessment orders are not final.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 13

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P Nos.42768-42773/2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH WRIT PETITION Nos.42768-42773 OF 2011 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S KOTHARI BUILDERS PWD CONTRACTORS KOTHARI COMPLEX CHIKKABASTI ROAD HASSAN – 573201. BY SOLE PROPRIETOR SRI J.RAMESHKUMAR S/O SRI M.JEETHMAL AGED 47 YEARS

…PETITIONER (BY SRI B.P.GANDHI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, INCOME TAX COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT HASSAN.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI T.K.VEDAMURTHY, HCGP) WP’s ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ANNEXURE A TO E DATED 27.07.2011 MADE BY RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 5(4) OF KTEG ACT READ WITH RULE 9(4) KTEF RULES FOR 2005-06 AND 2009- 10. WP’s COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

W.P Nos.42768-42773/2011 - - 2 O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral): Sri. B.P.Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute that the impugned assessment orders at Annexures – A to E are appealable under Section 13 of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979. 2. In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon (AIR 2010 SC 3413), it is appropriate for the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal in accordance with law. The petitioner is permitted to file appeals in accordance with law within 30 days from today and on such appeals being filed, the Appellate Authority shall consider the appeals on merits without reference to limitation. 3. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Demand notice at

W.P Nos.42768-42773/2011 - - 3 Annexure-F is not in accordance with law. This demand is only pursuant to the assessment orders referred to above. As the assessment orders have not become final, it is premature to examine the legality of the demand notice at Annexure-F. Petitions dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE GH/ata

More judgments on Section 13

All 783 judgments and leading authorities on Section 13 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →