9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 951 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxRevision of Assessment order Validity Commissioner by invoking suo moto revisional powers as per section 63A of KVAT act, revised order of assessment Aggrieved by revision of assessment order petitioner filed appeal before tribunal which was rejected Held that - Section 63A makes it clear that Joint Commissioner has power to exercise revisional jurisdiction for which was not prior to four years from date of order sought to be revised Rule against retrospective operation was fundamental rule of law that no statute shall be construed to have retrospective operation unless such construction appears very clearly in terms of Act Therefore Commissioner had power to revise assessment order No ground to interfere with order of Tribunal Petition dismissed Decided against Assesse.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction to invoke revision proceedings under Section 63A of the KVAT Act. 2. Deductibility of turnover related to purchases from dealers availing composition benefit under Section 15 from the total contract receipts for taxable turnover calculation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction to Invoke Revision Proceedings under Section 63A of the KVAT Act: The primary issue in these revision petitions is whether the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes had the jurisdiction to invoke suo moto revisional powers under Section 63A of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) for the assessment period before the provision's effective date of 01.04.2006. The petitioner argued that the Joint Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to exercise this power for the period before 01.04.2006 since Section 63A was inserted by Act No.4/2006 effective from 01.04.2006. The petitioner contended that the provision was not given retrospective effect, thus, the assessment order for the period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006 could not be re-opened. The respondent countered that Section 63A was brought in prospectively, allowing the Joint Commissioner to revise assessments for a period up to four years prior, even if the period was before 01.04.2006. The court examined Chapter VII of the KVAT Act, which deals with appeals and revisions, and noted that Section 63A, inserted by the Amendment Act No.4 of 2006, provided the Joint Commissioner with revisional powers similar to those of the Additional Commissioner under Section 64. The court highlighted that sub-section (2) of Section 63A allowed the Joint Commissioner to exercise revisional jurisdiction for a period not exceeding four years from the date of the order sought to be revised. Therefore, the Joint Commissioner could exercise revisional powers for periods prior to 01.04.2006, provided the revision was within the four-year limit. The court emphasized that there was no ambiguity in Section 63A, and the provision clearly allowed the Joint Commissioner to revise orders up to four years prior. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Addl. Commissioner (legal) and another vs. Jyoti traders and another, which supported the interpretation that the language of the provision should be given full effect if clear. The court concluded that the Joint Commissioner had the power to revise the assessment order dated 08.06.2006 for the assessment period 2005-06 under Section 63A of the KVAT Act. 2. Deductibility of Turnover Related to Purchases from Dealers Availing Composition Benefit under Section 15: The court did not address this issue in detail as the petitioner's counsel did not challenge the Tribunal's order on the merits of the case. The focus of the arguments and the court's analysis was primarily on the jurisdictional issue under Section 63A of the KVAT Act. Conclusion: The court dismissed the revision petitions, answering the questions of law in favor of the Revenue. The court affirmed that the Joint Commissioner had the jurisdiction to revise the assessment order for the period 2005-06 under Section 63A of the KVAT Act. The court also noted that the petitioner could challenge the vires of sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the KVAT Act through appropriate legal remedies if desired.
|
