Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s Solidus Hi Tech Products Pvt Ltd, a company manufacturing press components, sheet metal enclosures, telecommunication equipments, bus bar, heavy electrical products, automotive components and heat sinks, was assessed under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for the tax periods 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The appellant had paid tax at 4% on sales of parts of UPS. The assessment was initially deemed accepted based on returns filed, but was reopened under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act. On 5.4.2010, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes found no discrepancy and recorded that the tax paid at 4% was in order. Subsequently, on 28.11.2013, information was received from the Superintendent of Central Excise, based on which a notice under Section 63A of the KVAT Act was issued on 16.12.2013. On 12.11.2014, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Revisional Authority) passed an order setting aside the assessment order and proceeded to pass a fresh reassessment order under Section 63A. The appellant challenged this order by filing writ petitions (WP 5031-33/2015 and 5955-5987/2015), which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 13.2.2015 on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of appeal before the Tribunal under Section 63 of the KVAT Act. Aggrieved, the appellant filed these writ appeals. The main legal issue was whether the Revisional Authority under Section 63A, after setting aside the assessment order, could pass a fresh assessment order or was required to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. The appellant argued that the Revisional Authority acted without jurisdiction by passing a fresh assessment order, as Section 63A only permits setting aside and remanding. The respondents contended that the writ petitions were rightly dismissed due to alternate remedy. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the Revisional Authority under Section 63A cannot pass a fresh assessment order; the only option is to remand to the Assessing Officer. The order of the Revisional Authority was without jurisdiction. The court further held that availability of alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction when the order is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court allowed the writ appeals, set aside the order of the Single Judge and the order of the Revisional Authority, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Taxation - Revisional Powers - Section 63A Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Scope of Revisional Authority - The Revisional Authority under Section 63A, after setting aside the assessment order, cannot pass a fresh assessment order; the only option is to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The order passed by the Revisional Authority was without jurisdiction. (Paras 1-4) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternate Remedy - Availability of alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction when the impugned order is without jurisdiction. The Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petitions solely on the ground of alternate remedy. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Revisional Authority under Section 63A of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, after setting aside the assessment order, could proceed to pass a fresh assessment order or was required to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
Final Decision
The writ appeals are allowed. The order of the Single Judge dated 13.2.2015 in WPs 5031-33/2015 and 5955-5987/2015 is set aside. The order of the Revisional Authority dated 12.11.2014 is also set aside. The matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Revisional Authority under Section 63A of KVAT Act cannot pass fresh assessment order after setting aside original assessment
- must remand to Assessing Officer
- Availability of alternate remedy not a bar when order is without jurisdiction
