9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... become final, we cannot interfere with the said order. he Tribunal could not have directed revision of CST assessment while disposing of an appeal filed against KGST assessment, though for the very same year. Therefore, the observation of the Tribunal on valuation could be considered as a ground for reopening of the CST assessment under rule 6(8) of the CST (Kerala) Rules referred above, by the officer. The time available to the officer for revision of assessment under the above provision is only four years from the expiry of the year to which the tax relates. In this case admittedly the CST assessment for the year 1997-98 was revised only on February 12, 2002 which is clearly outside the period of limitation provided therein. Moreover, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's order to revise the CST assessment is not tenable as the matter was not before them, the assesse did not choose to challenge the order which became final. Consequent upon the order issued by the Tribunal, the assessing officer revised CST assessment vide annexure B order dated December 12, 2002 which was challenged by the assessee in appeal before the first appellate authority as well as before the Tribunal, but without success. It is against this order of the Tribunal assessee has come up with this revision raising several grounds. Counsel for the petitioner contended that annexure C order issued by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the assessee against the KGST assessment is illegal and unauthorised because the Tribunal has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not go into the question of value adopted or the turnover assessed under the CST Act, though for the same year. Of course when the commodity sold both within the State and outside the State as inter-State sales is one and the same and when the question raised is estimation of value after rejection of the value declared by the assessee, it is open to the Tribunal to make their observations pertaining to CST assessment also. At the maximum such observation will constitute information for the assessing officer to reopen the CST assessment under rule 6(8) of the CST (Kerala) Rules or enable the Deputy Commissioner to exercise suo motu revisional power under section 35 of the KGST Act to bring to tax escaped turnover. In this case the Tribunal d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and improper and a show-cause notice was issued. The designated officer passed an order levying penalty under section 51(7)(c) of the Act which was upheld by the appellate authority. However, on further appeal, the Tribunal set aside the same as follows: I have gone through the arguments of counsel for the appellant and counsel for the State and perused the record. Account books and other relevant documents produced by the appellant in the court today. No defect has been pointed out by the detaining officer in the impounded invoice copy of the invoice produced by the appellant during the course of examination before the detaining officer. All the account books were produced by the appellant, i.e., purchase voucher, account books, purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
