M/S Vishal Concrete Works vs. State Of Karnataka
Held
The Court held that the initial notice clearly called for objections and proposals, and the petitioner failed to file specific objections. The Court also noted the availability of an alternative appellate remedy.
Facts
The petitioner challenged a reassessment order and demand notice, alleging that no specific proposition notice was given before the order was passed, despite a refund claim. The respondent argued that a notice was issued calling for objections and production of documents.
Key Issues
Whether the reassessment order was passed in violation of natural justice due to lack of a specific proposition notice. Whether an alternative appellate remedy bars the writ petition.
Sections Cited
Section 39(1), Section 62
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
DATED 25.3.2017 AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.3.2017 PASSED BY R-2 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KVAT ACT IN RELATION TO Date of Order 18-09-2017 W.P.No.41633/2017 M/s. Vishal Concrete Works Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
2/8
THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD 2010-11 IN PETITIONER’S CASE A
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.