SRI. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.32512 /2015 AND 2957-2991/2016 (T-RES) BETWEEN: Sri. Ramakrishna Reddy, Son of Narappa, Aged about 52 years, Residing at LIC Office, Tumakuru Road, Pavagada 561 202, Tumakuru District. …PETITIONER

(By Shri P.N.Nanja Reddy, Advocate)

AND:

Represented by the Commissioner,

Department of Commercial Taxes,

Gandhinagar,

Bengaluru 560 009.

Department of Commercial Taxes,

BMTC Complex,

Shanthinagar,

Bengaluru 560 027.

(Audit and Recovery),

Department of Commercial Taxes,

Madhugiri 572 103,

Tumakuru District. …RESPONDENTS

(By Shri S.V.Girikumar, Additional Government Advocate) *****

These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 28.2.2015 (Annexure-C), order dated 28.2.2015 (Annexure-D) and the order dated 21.2.2015 (Annexure-E) passed by third respondent as the same are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and in violation of principles of natural justice and etc;

These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:

O R D E R

The petitions coming on for preliminary hearing, are considered for final disposal.

3 2. The petitioner is said to be a Class-I Contractor undertaking mostly Government contracts. It is stated that payments in respect of such works are made with reluctance after deducting the sales tax, royalty tax and income tax from the amount payable to the petitioner. The certificates issued by the employer engaging the services of the petitioner is illustrative of this. In that, sales tax to the extent of 4%, income tax at the rate of 2% and royalty has been deducted and has even been paid to the Commercial Tax Department and tax deduction certificates are issued in respect of the Assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08. It is the grievance of the petitioner that re-assessment orders have been passed without notice to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned Government Advocate however would point out that it is misleading on the part of the petitioner to claim that there was no notice issued. As admitted by the petitioner himself, notices have been issued on three occasions. The petitioner not having chosen to avail of the opportunity,

4 could not complain of lack of opportunity. However, if the petitioner has a case on merits and if he has not been heard, interests of justice would require that he should be given an opportunity of hearing. 4. Since this would place the Department at some disadvantage in having to redo the entire exercise, the petitioner would do well to compensate the Department for its trouble and therefore, the petitions are allowed on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the Commercial Tax Department. The impugned Annexures “C”, “D” and “E” are set aside with a direction to the Competent Authority to re-do the exercise after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the authority without any further notice, on 24.02.2016.

Sd/-

JUDGE