The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exceeded jurisdiction by failing to act within one year as mandated under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, confirming procedural timeliness is essential in administrative adjudication.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

The challenge in this intra-court appeal is to an order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPs No.14969 and 57759-57805 of 2015, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petitions filed by the respondent herein by stating in paragraph No.5 as under:

“5. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even in terms of Section 63-A (3) of the Act, the Joint Commissioner was required to pass the order within a period of one year from the date of initiation of proceedings or calling for the records under the Act. It may be noticed, on the face of it, that the order has been passed beyond the period of one year and therefore, respondent No.1 was acting without jurisdiction. The learned Additional Government Advocate would not dispute this position. Therefore, on that short point, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. If the authorities, under the Act, have the power to revise the order and make amendments, if any illegality is found in the order, it would be open for the authorities to exercise power conferred under the Act, if it is so permitted. Therefore, there is no prejudice caused to the revenue by this order. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The impugned order bearing No.JCCT(Adm)/DVO-1/SMR/CR- 09/2014-15, T.No.2886/14-15 dated 21.2.2015 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn), DVO-1, Bangalore, is quashed. The order directing refund of amount in favour of the petitioner remains in tact.”

2. The facts to be noted from the record are, the respondent is a dealer registered under the then provisions of the then Karnataka Value Added Tax Act , 2003 (‘the Act’ for short). The Assessing Officer attached to the appellants has concluded re-assessment under Section 39(1) of the Act for the years 2006-07 to 2009-10 inter alia recording a finding that respondent-assessee is entitled to refund of Rs.1,06,95,125/-. Upon receipt of re- assessment order, the respondent-assessee had, on 06.04.2012 and 11.06.2012, requested the LVO-20 to issue refund as per the re-assessment order.

3. It was the case of the appellants that, upon receipt of the said request, the LVO-20 recommended for refund of tax and sent the same to the Joint Commissioner for approval on 19.06.2012. The respondent-assessee again requested the Joint Commissioner by its request letter dated 21.08.2012 to give effect to the recommendation made by the LVO-20 vide letter dated 19.06.2012. The Joint Commissioner after receipt of letter dated 21.08.2012, directed the Assessing Officer to submit assessment record on 20.10.2012.

4. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer on 19.11.2012, intimated the Joint Commissioner that the assessment records sent to Joint Commissioner (Appeals) and immediately after receipt of the records, the same will be submitted to the Joint Commissioner. Accordingly, on 12.12.2012, the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed and the records were sent to Joint Commissioner on 23.01.2013.

5. After receipt of the assessment records, the Joint Commissioner intimated the respondent to produce certain documents vide his endorsement dated 11.03.2013. After receipt of the said endorsement, the respondent-assessee partially fulfilled the requirement of endorsement dated 17.10.2013 and subsequently the required information was furnished. Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner has approved to issue refund in favour of the respondent- assessee by his letter dated 04.04.2014. Accordingly, the same was sent to LVO-20.

6. Since the LVO-20 found that it was not a fit case for refund, he ret