Appeal Against Endorsement Seeking Production Of Account Books Lies Before Joint Commissioner Of Appeals: Karnataka High Court
The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the appeal against endorsement seeking production of account books lies before the joint commissioner of appeals.The bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani has observed that there is an alternative efficacious statutory remedy under Section 62 of the KVAT Act, 2003.The petitioner/assessee is a partnership firm running a bar, restaurant,...
The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the appeal against endorsement seeking production of account books lies before the joint commissioner of appeals.
The bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani has observed that there is an alternative efficacious statutory remedy under Section 62 of the KVAT Act, 2003.
The petitioner/assessee is a partnership firm running a bar, restaurant, and lodging. The firm is duly registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979.
The Commercial Tax Officer, Hubballi, along with their inspectors, visited the place of business of the petitioner. After disclosing their identities, they claimed that they had jointly come for the inspection of the business premises of Trishul Bar and Restaurant as per the assignment of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement) Hubballi.
The petitioner explained that the business place does not belong to Trishul Bar and Restaurant but belongs to M/s. Three First Enterprises. To ascertain the true position, the petitioner demanded a copy of the assignment. However, the officers neither showed the assignment nor furnished a copy of the same, and on the contrary, they threatened the petitioner with criminal prosecution and demanded the books of accounts. Hence, the petitioner furnished the purchase bills, sales register, and sales bills voluntarily, which were rightly available on the table in an open space on the business premises. The petitioner has filed the Writ Petition on several grounds set out in the Memorandum of Petition.
The petitioner contended that the petitioner and Trishul Bar and Restaurant are different entities. The tax officers came with the assignment of inspecting the business of Trishul Bar and Restaurant. The petitioner had nothing to do with the Trishul Bar and Restaurant. The officer concerned had no authority to make a sudden visit. The action taken by the tax officials was untenable under law.
The department contended that in the assignment note, the trader's name has been shown as M/s. Three First Enterprises (Trishul Bar and Restaurant). The endorsement issued by the Commercial Tax Officer is just and proper. There is an alternative efficacious statutory remedy under Section 62 of the KVAT Act, 2003, and I prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
The court noted that the objection was also raised about the authority of the tax officers to make a sudden visit. Several contentions are urged regarding the identity of the petitioner and that of the Trishul Bar and Restaurant.
The court while dismissing the petition granted the liberty to avail the statutory remedy.
Counsel For Petitioner: Narayan.G.Rasalkar
Counsel For Respondent: Shivaprabhu.S.Hiremath
Case Title: M/S Three 1st Enterprises Versus The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 102550 Of 2017 (T-RES)
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 372