2016 (6) TMI 344 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Computation of tax - as per operative portion of the order - Appeallant conceded that the matters are covered by the earlier decision of this Court in appellants own case - Held that - as there is no dispute that the matters are covered by this court in the appellant s own case reported in 2016 (4) TMI 618 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , in our view, similar order can be passed. Hence, the impugned order passed by respondent-authority deserves to be set aside with a further direction that the revision/s shall stand restored to the file of Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes-respondent herein. Respondent shall consider the matter again in light of the observations made by this Court in the present order and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, appropriate order shall be passed in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. - Appeal allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order of Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes setting aside the first appellate authority's order and directing computation of tax.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercising revisional power, setting aside the first appellate authority's order. The revisional authority directed the computation of tax as per the operative part of the order.

2. Both counsels for the appellant and respondent agreed that the matters were covered by a previous decision of the Court dated 3.3.2016, concerning the same assessee, with the only difference being the assessment period in the present appeals.

3. The Court noted that in the previous decision, it was observed that the respondent did not discuss the issue of limitation despite it being raised by the appellant. The Court emphasized that the point of limitation was crucial and could change the basis of the order if accepted.

4. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the revisions be restored to the file of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for reconsideration. The respondent was instructed to re-examine the matter in light of the Court's observations and pass an appropriate order within three months from the receipt of the order's copy.

5. The Court reiterated that the rights and contentions of both parties would remain open in the revisional proceedings. The appeals were allowed to the extent mentioned, and no costs were awarded in light of the circumstances.

6. In conclusion, the Court's decision focused on the importance of addressing the issue of limitation raised by the appellant, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of this aspect in the revisional proceedings. The judgment highlighted the necessity for the respondent to consider this crucial point and make a decision in accordance with the law within a specified timeframe.