IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2023 BETWEEN:

M/S LAKEPOINT BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.757/B, 100 FEET ROAD, HAL 2^ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 008.

(REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER ACCOUNTS - SHRI.M PRABHAKARA S/O MUNI REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS)

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHIDANANDA URS B G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally

1. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Signed by COMMERCIAL TAXES (ZONE)-3, REKHA R DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, Location :

High Court GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, of Karnataka GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 001.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT) - 5.9 DGSTO-5, VTK-2 "B" BLOCK, 6TH FLOOR, VIVEK NAGAR, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 047.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, AGA.,)

THIS STA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 66 (1) OF THE KVAT ACT, 2003, PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE REVISION ORDER NO.ZAC/03/BNG-05/SMT-55/22-23 DATED 08.08.2023 AT ANNEXURE - "A" BEARING T. NO. 723/2023-24 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ii) TO QUASH THE CONSEQUENTIAL DEMAND PROCEEDING IN T. NO.586/23-24 DATED 13.09.2023 ALONG THE DEMAND NOTICE IN FORM VAT - 180 DATED

13.09.2023 AT ANNEXURE - "B".

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

The assessee is in appeal under Section 66 of KVAT Act, calling in question the order dated 08.08.2023, passed in revision order No.ZAC/03/BNG-05/SMR-55/22-23 (bearing No.723/2023-24 for the year 2016-17), by respondent No.1 (Annexure-A), as well as the consequential Demand proceedings in T.No.586/23-24 dated 13.09.2023, along with Demand notice in Form VAT-180 dated 12.09.2023 on the following substantial question of law which reads as under:

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondent was justified in invoking powers of revision under Section 64 of the KVAT Act to set aside order of the First Appellate Authority, in the absence of satisfying the twin conditions adumbrated by the Legislature?

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant has fulfilled the conditions prescribed as per Rule 3(2)(i-1) of Karnataka Value Added Taxes Rules, 2005?

3. Whether the conditions imposed under Rule 3(2)(i-

1) are satisfied when all the information sought under VAT-120 is provided and any other information sought is unjust condition which would violate Art.14 read with Art.19(1)(g) read with Article 301 of the Constitution."

2. A brief outline of facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under:

3. The assessee is a registered company engaged in execution of civil works contracts and had opted for paying tax under 'composition scheme', in terms of Section 15(1) of Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('KVAT Act' for short)

4. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)- 5.5, passed re-assessment order vide order dated 29.05.2019, under Section 39(1) for the Financial Year 2016-2017 read with Section 72(2) and Section 36(1) of KVAT Act. As per the order, tax of Rs.2,97,638/-, imposed with interest of Rs.34,089/- and penalty of Rs.8,417/-, thereby demanded a sum of Rs.1,26,675/- against the assessee.

5. The assessee preferred an application under the Karasamadhana Scheme, 2019, in terms of Notification issued by the Government of Karnataka vide Order No. FD 9 CSL 2019, Bengaluru dated 21.02.2019 (Annexure-C). A sum of Rs.84,149/- was paid towards tax along with the application. The respondent Authority under the scheme supra vide order dated 05.07.2019, waived interest of Rs.34,089/- and penalty of Rs.8,417/- in terms of the scheme (Annexure-E1), admitting the assessee to the benefits under the Karasamadhana Scheme.

6. The respondent No.1, subsequent to waiver and admittedly the assessee to