9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority confirming the order passed by the Assessing Authority imposing penalty for the assessment month of April, May & June 2005. 2. The assessee is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and registered under the provisions of Karnataka Value Added Tax and CST Acts. The appellant-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of printed labels. The appellant-company has filed the returns for the month of April, May and June 2005 in Form No.100. In the returns, the assessee claimed refund and also sought for exemption of the tax on the ground of export of goods. The assessee also claimed deduction on input tax. The Assessing Authority after noticing the returns inspected the prem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Authority imposing penalty preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner for Commercial Taxes contending that the Act came into force w.e.f. 1-4-2005 there was lot of confusion with regard to the new enactment. The percentage of tax payable was also not made known to the assessee and the Government has also not framed the rules. In view of that, there is a mistake in filing the returns. Subsequently, revised returns has been filed by paying interest. Hence, the Assessing Authority cannot invoke Section 72 of the Act and impose penalty. The Appellate Authority after considering the matter by its order dated 24-10-2008 allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of penalty imposed under Section 72(2) of the KVAT Act. The Revisional A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set aside. Further, the KVAT Act was introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2005. The State Government has also not framed rules. There was lot of confusion with regard to the new enactment. As per the Government Notification issued under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, the industrial input are exempted from payment of Tax. The printed labels fall under the notification issued by the State Government. Hence, he has claimed exemption. In the revised returns, he paid tax at the rate of 4%. In the second revised returns, he paid tax at the rate of 12.5%. Further he has paid the interest for the differences of the tax between 4% and 12.5%. Under Section 35(4) of the Act, the assessee has got six months time to file revised returns. Hence, the Assessing Authority ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... infirmity or irregularity in the said order. With regard to the jurisdictional issue raised by the appellant, passing of the order by the Additional Commissioner is covered by the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in STA No.64/2009 and other connected matters. Further, the appellant has not raised the jurisdictional issue before the Competent Authority under Section 67 of the Act. Hence it is not open for him to raise this issue in this appeal and sought for dismissal of the same. 5. The above appeal is admitted for considering the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the order of the revisional authority in setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority and levying penalty is bad in law? (ii) Whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty. The assessee filed objections filed by the assessee. The Assessing Authority after considering the objections filed by the assessee passed the order on 26-03-2008. The said order was set aside the by the Appellate Authority on 24-10-2008. The Revisional Authority taken up suo- motu revision and revised the said order on the ground that the order passed by the Appellate Authority setting aisde the order passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 72 of the Act is erroneous in law and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 8. The main contention urged by the assessee is that under Section 35(1) of the Act, the assessee has to file the returns within 15 days after the end of preceding month. Further Section 35(4) of the Act prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not taken into consideration the contention taken by the assessee. Further, Section 2(28) defines return which includes revised returns. Hence, the question of imposing penalty by the Assessing Authority for filing the revised returns has to be re-examined. The issue regarding the jurisdiction of passing the order under Section 64 has not been taken before the Revisional Authority or the Assessing Authority. Hence, the Assessing Authority has to reconsider the matter afresh. With regard to the interest is concerned, the Assessing Authority has not levied any interest. However, the revisional authority has directed the Assessing Authority to levy interest on the differences of the tax paid by the assessee. The specific contention taken b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
