9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in respect of particular nature of transaction. It is therefore that we also direct the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) to whom the matter is now remanded to examine the appeal afresh on merits, to give opportunity to the appellant-dealer if so desired to produce additional evidence and to consider the same along with the available material and to pass order afresh in the appeal of the dealer.In the result, these appeals are allowed. - S.T.A. Nos. 101 & 113 to 133 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2013 - SHYLENDRA KUMAR D.V. AND SREENIVASE GOWDA B., JJ. For the Appellant : A. Satyanarayan For the Respondent : K.M. Shivayogiswamy, Additional Government Advocate, The judgment of the court was delivered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticular, had directed the appellant-dealer to produce relevant books of accounts supporting the claim made towards input-tax rebate in terms of section 10(1) read with section 17(1) of the Act. 4. The assessing authority noticed that the assessee was not responding to the same inspite of several opportunities and accordingly concluded the re-assessment on best judgment basis under section 39(1) of the Act as per his order dated July 23, 2007. 5. The appellant-dealer appealed against this order to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and met with success, but not to the full extent. The Appellate Commissioner opined that the statement made by the appellant-dealer claiming input-tax rebate was good enough and therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese appeals. 10. Sri Satyanarayan, learned counsel for the appellant-dealer, has urged several contentions including submission that the dealer had produced commensurate books of accounts and the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) was fully satisfied with the same ; that the period of reassessment included the initial three months of assessment period from the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 to Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and therefore the initial concession shown for the transitory period should have been extended ; that no penalty or interest could have been levied under section 72 of the Act for the months of April to June 2005 and levy of penalty for this period also is clearly erroneous. 11. On the other hand, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n full opportunity and the matter remanded to the appellate authority, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), and in view of the order of the Additional Commissioner perhaps an opportunity to adduce further evidence which was a possibility before the appellate authority is being lost and the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes should not have pre-empted this opportunity available to the appellant. 14. It is not necessary for us to go into other merits of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes as it would have been appropriate for the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to set aside the order of the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) and to remand the matter to Join ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
