9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 976 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPeriod of limitation in passing the orders - Rectification of mistakes - Section 25A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 - assessment years 1989-90 and 1991-92 to 2002-2003 - HELD THAT - This provision makes it clear that the Assessing Authority for the purpose of the present cases , is empowered to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, at any time, within a period of five years from the date of the order passed by the said authority. Indisputably, all the impugned orders herein are passed beyond the period of five years from the date of the original assessment order/original rectification order. Section 25-A of the Act which provides only five years limitation has been invoked. Even on this ground, the concerned officers have to be fixed with, for the loss of revenue caused to the State Exchequer. The orders of rectification impugned herein cannot be approved, being passed beyond the period of limitation envisaged under Section 25A of the Act and deserves to be set aside on the ground of limitation alone. As already observed, the jurisdiction/competency of the assessing authority to exercise the powers under Section 25-A of the Act is not pressed. The orders impugned passed by respondent No.1 under Section 25A of the Act are quashed - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of rectification orders passed under Section 25A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. 2. Limitation period for passing rectification orders under Section 25A. 3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority to pass orders under Section 25A post re-designation under GST regime. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Rectification Orders: The petitioner challenged the rectification orders dated 31.03.2018, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) under Section 25A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1991-92 to 2002-2003. These orders subjected the turnover related to the transfer of goods in the works contract for processing and supplying photographs, photo prints, and photo negatives to tax under Entry 25 of the Sixth Schedule read with Section 5B of the Act. The rectification orders were passed following the Supreme Court's decision in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Pro Lab and others (30.01.2015), which declared Entry 25 of the Sixth Schedule constitutionally valid. 2. Limitation Period for Passing Rectification Orders: The primary ground for challenge was that the orders were passed beyond the five-year limitation period prescribed under Section 25A of the Act. Section 25A states that the assessing authority may rectify any mistake apparent from the record within five years from the date of the order passed by it. The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were ex facie illegal as they were passed beyond this limitation period. The court noted that all rectification orders were indeed passed beyond five years from the date of the original assessment order or original rectification order. Citing the case of Mysore Cements Limited, the court emphasized that orders that have become final cannot be rectified after the expiration of the prescribed limitation period. 3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority Post Re-designation: Although the petitioner raised the issue of jurisdiction, arguing that no notification had been issued conferring powers on the Assessing Authority to exercise powers under Section 25A after re-designation under the GST regime, the argument was not pressed. The court noted that this issue was kept open for future consideration. Conclusion: The court concluded that the rectification orders were invalid as they were passed beyond the five-year limitation period. The orders of rectification and the consequential demands raised were quashed. However, liberty was reserved for the revenue to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law to give effect to the Supreme Court's judgment in Pro Lab’s case, if available under the Act. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.
|
