The order is appealable under section 55 of the erstwhile KVAT Act, 2003. The petitioner if so advised is at liberty to avail the remedy of appeal.
Principal of natural justice— Through the instant writ petition a challenge has been laid to the assessment order on the facts that no opportunity of hearing was granted, except permission to file reply, even the rate of tax as per Section 6(1) of the KVAT has not been charged properly. In other words concessional rate of 0.5% of the sale of the used motor vehicles has not been looked into but tax at the rate of 14.5% has been charged.
the petitioner submits that the reply was filed on 28-2-2020, the assessment order was passed on the next working day i.e., 2-3-2020 without granting such opportunity and it is not only arbitrary but with pre-determined.
Held that— the argument of counsel representing the petitioner is apparently not tenable on plain perusal of the impugned order as not only the reply was ordered to be given on 28-2-2020 even the Assistant Manager of the petitioner also appeared and he argued the matter as noticed in the impugned order. There is no such assertion in the writ petition with regard to that.
The petitioner if so advised is at liberty to avail the remedy of appeal. With the aforementioned observations this writ petition is dismissed.
The order is appealable under section 55 of the erstwhile KVAT Act, 2003. The petitioner if so advised is at liberty to avail the remedy of appeal.
Principal of natural justice— Through the instant writ petition a challenge has been laid to the assessment order on the facts that no opportunity of hearing was granted, except permission to file reply, even the rate of tax as per Section 6(1) of the KVAT has not been charged properly. In other words concessional rate of 0.5% of the sale of the used motor vehicles has not been looked into but tax at the rate of 14.5% has been charged.
the petitioner submits that the reply was filed on 28-2-2020, the assessment order was passed on the next working day i.e., 2-3-2020 without granting such opportunity and it is not only arbitrary but with pre-determined.
Held that— the argument of counsel representing the petitioner is apparently not tenable on plain perusal of the impugned order as not only the reply was ordered to be given on 28-2-2020 even the Assistant Manager of the petitioner also appeared and he argued the matter as noticed in the impugned order. There is no such assertion in the writ petition with regard to that.
The petitioner if so advised is at liberty to avail the remedy of appeal. With the aforementioned observations this writ petition is dismissed.