M/S Rachana Enterprises vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: SHRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR S
In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following relief's:- a) Issue a writ of prohibition, or any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in preventing Respondent no.2 or functionaries working under its office from proceeding in excess or abuse of their juri iction in demanding the input tax credit to which the prescription of limitation under section 16(4) of KGSTA, 2017 was inapplicable. b) Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, by quashing the demand of input tax credit with interest in Annexure D and E as illegal and untenable in law; c) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other order directing Respondent no.2 not to proceed further in the matter in the light of the advent of KGSTA, 2017; d) To pass such other orders, directions as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice, including the costs of this writ petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents and perused the material on record.
In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of Annexure-'H' will indicate that no liability as demanded in Annexures-'D' and 'E' can be fastened upon the petitioner and since Annexure-'H' has not been taken into consideration while issuing Annexures-'D' and 'E' by the respondents, the intimation / notices at Annexure-'D' and 'E' deserves to be quashed.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents submits that Annexures - 'D' and 'E' are merely endorsements and further proceedings pursuant thereto would be taken by the respondents in accordance with law and consequently, the present petition is liable to be dismissed as premature.
I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions.
As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate, perusal of Annexures-'D' and 'E' would indicate that the notices / intimation issued by the respondents intimating the petitioner about the alleged discrepancies in the returns after scrutiny.
Under these circumstances, though several rival contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims and having regard to the fact that the respondents have not taken any steps / initiated any further proceedings pursuant to Annexures- 'D' and 'E' as on today, without expressing any opinion on the merits / de-merits of the rival contentions, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition directing the respondents to consider the material on record produced by the petitioner in the present petition including the Bank statement at Annexure-'H' and proceed thereafter pursuant to Annexures - 'D' and 'E' in accordance with law.
Subject to the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE VMB
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.