Page 190 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

92 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
bility of alternate remedy. However, since the matter involves an interpretation
of the statutory provision in the light of undisputed facts available on record, I
see no need to relegate the petitioner to statutory appeal. This plea is also reject-
ed.
14. In view of the above discussion, these writ petitions are allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

_______

2020 (35) G.S.T.L. 92 (Kar.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. Sujatha, J.
SUMA OIL AGENCIES
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BENGALURU
Writ Petition No. 50852 of 2018 (T-Res), decided on 18-7-2019
Re-assessment - Ex parte order - Assignment note issued to Deputy
Commissioner relating to tax periods 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 considered to be
assignment issued even to tax period 2012-2013 resulting in issuance of re-
assessment notice to reassess assessee for tax period 2012-2013 - Jurisdiction of
officers to proceed with reassessment relating to tax period 2012-2013 not clear
amongst concerned authorities - Assessee appeared before authority who is-
sued notice - Said ought to have transferred proceedings initiated by him be-
fore competent authority - Ex parte reassessment order to be set aside - Pro-
ceedings remitted to competent authority to redo assessment after providing
opportunity of hearing to assessee - Section 39 of Karnataka Value Added Tax
Act, 2003. [paras 3, 4]
Petition allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri K.M. Shivayogiswamy, Advocate, for the
Petitioner.
Shri T.K. Vedamurthy, AGA, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The petitioner has challenged the ex parte reassessment order
dated 20-2-2018 and consequential demand notice dated 3-10-2018 passed by re-
spondent No. 2 under the provisions of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act,
2003 relating to the tax periods 2012-2013.
2. The petitioner was a registered dealer under the provision of the
Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for
short). It is submitted that the petitioner was issued with reassessment notice
relating to the tax period 2012-2013 by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial
Taxes (Audit)-5.2 to which the petitioner has suitably replied and has produced
the books of account before the said authority. It appears that subsequently, reas-
sessment notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
(Audit)-5.5 to reassess the assessee. It transpires that the petitioner has brought
to the notice of the said authority inasmuch as earlier notice issued by the Depu-
ty Commissioner (Audit)-5.2 relating to the very same tax periods. Despite the
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  254