1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION No.10233/2021 (T-RES)

Between:

M/s. Lenovo (India) Private Limited,

A Company incorporated under the

Companies Act

Ferns Icon, Doddanekundi

Marathalli Post,

Marathalli Outer Ring Road,

Bangalore - 560 037

Represented by its Manager Taxation

Ramesh Bhat,

S/o Late U Vasudev Bhat

Aged about 56 years.

& Petitioner

(By Sri Harish V.S., Advocate)

And:

The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

(Audit-5.5), DVO-5

'B' Block, Room No.608, 6^th Floor,

V.T.K.-2, Koramangala,

Bangalore - 560 047.

& Respondent

(By Sri K. Hema Kumar, AGA)

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, praying to quash that part of the impugned

order of re-assessment passed by the respondent under Sections

39(1), 36(1), 72(2) of the KVAT Act, r/w Rule 46 of KVAT Rules,

2005 dated 26.04.2021 i.e., Annexure-G, relevant to the tax

period November 2016, and the consequential demand notice

2

issued by the respondent in Form VAT 180, dated 26.04.2021

i.e., Annexure-G-1 and further direct the respondent to do the

re-assessment de novo relevant to the tax period November,

2016, considering all the contentions raised by the petitioner and

pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and etc.

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'

Group this day, the Court, made the following:

ORDER

Petitioner has filed an application for rectification

under Section 69 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act (for

short 'the Act') asserting that there has been a mistake

apparent in the assessment order. Copy of the said

rectification application is enclosed at Annexure-H.

2.

Petitioner submits that he was not afforded an

opportunity of personal hearing while passing of the

endorsement at Annexure-J dated 31.05.2021.

3.

Insofar

as

the

said

aspect

of

affording

opportunity of personal hearing is concerned, learned

counsel for the revenue is unable to controvert the said

assertion

and

demonstrate

from

the

records

that

opportunity of personal hearing was indeed granted.

3

4.

In light of the same, the endorsement dated

31.05.2021 is set aside and the respondent is directed to

reconsider the application under Section 69 of the Act filed

by the petitioner afresh. All contentions of the petitioner are

kept open.

5.

Insofar as the attack to the assessment order on

the ground that the petitioner had communicated by way of

Email dated 24.04.2021 additional submissions with certain

attachments detailing the errors and omissions which had

taken place with respect to sales return data for the month

of November'2016, and such Email communicated to the

Assessing Officer, has not been taken note of. It is

submitted that the Assessing Officer had communicated by

Email dated 26.04.2021 that the re-assessment proceedings

were finalised and order has been sent. It is contended that

the Email sent by the petitioner was on Sunday, 25th April,

2021 and the reply sent was on Monday, 26th April, 2021.

As the re-assessment order was also passed on 26th April,

2021 the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue would

4

submit that though Email has been seen by the respondent-

authority on 26.04.2021, the order was passed prior to

application of mind as regards to the said Email.

6.

It is further contended that in the re-assessment

order at Para (a) of Page 3 of the said order, the Assessing

Officer has adverted to the discrepancy in the declaration

made by the petitioner in VAT 240, insofar as petitioner

submits that due to clerical error, the turn over was shown

as

Rs.66,80,58,118/-

instead

of

Rs.6,60,85,118/-.

Accordingly, it is submitted that detailed consideration

having been made in the re-assessment order, remedy is

open to the petitioner by filing an appeal and