AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Learned Government Advocate has sought for further time to have her say in the matter.
When the matter was listed on 3-10-2007, the Court felt that the matter needs to be heard by an officer belonging to any other Zone except the (Intelligence), South Zone in order to verify and find out the Jurisdictional Officer working in other zones, the matter was adjourned to 8-10-2007. When the matter is being argued today, learned Government Advocate submits that at the first instance, she was given three names of the officers before whom the matter can be transferred. However, later she was instructed by the department that she should move for an adjournment for filing objections.
As this Court feels it necessary that the matter should be transferred to an authority other than the authority in the Intelligence Wing of South Zone, the statement of objections to the main writ petition by the State may not be necessary.
As could be seen from the document at Annexure-D1, dated 18-4-2007, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), South Zone has written letter to Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, which reads thus:
"The business premises of the above dealer was inspected by the Commercial Tax Officer (Intelligence-3), South Zone, Bangalore, on 3-3-2007 and noticed that the dealer is undertaking supply and installation of kitchen panels, wardrobes, etc., against the purchase orders placed by the customers and treated the said transaction as a works contract and claimed 25% of the total value received from the customers as exemption towards labour charges and on the remaining value discharging VAT at rate of 12.5%. The claim of the dealer in question has been examined and noticed that the dealer company is not eligible for exemption on labour charges as the transactions of supplying and installation/fixing of kitchen panels and wardrobes are in the nature of sales and not works contract as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v M/s. Kone Elevators (India) Limited, AIR 2005 SC 1581".
From the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that the claim of the petitioner is already determined by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, which means that there is nothing else which is left to be determined by the Commercial Taxes Officer (Intelligence-3) to whom the matter is now referred for adjudication. There is no dispute that Commercial Taxes (Intelligence-3) is a lower rank officer working under Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence), South Zone. Therefore, the Commercial Taxes Officer (Intelligence-3) will have no option but to accept the aforementioned directions issued by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence). In view of the same, the petitioner is justified in apprehending that he will not get justice from the officers working in Intelligence, South Zone Division. Consequently, the matter needs to be decided on merits by any other officer other than the officer working in the (Intelligence) South Zone.
Hence, the following order is made:
The second respondent is directed to assign the file in question to any officer working in any division except (Intelligence) South Zone, for deciding the matter.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.