2013 (5) TMI 779

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t annexures Y, Z, A1 and A2, respectively, whereunder assessment orders have been passed on March 6, 2011 by determining the tax payable. In the normal course, this court would have refused to interfere with the orders passed by the first respondent on the ground of alternate remedy of appeal being available to the petitioner. However, factual matrix in the present case has persuaded me to take a different view for the reasons stated hereinbelow: The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the operation of extraction of oil from rice bran, soya bean seeds and oil-cakes and selling the same. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. For the assess .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hed this court in W.P. Nos. 7617-7620 of 2011. This court by order dated February 23, 2011 (Dayananda Extraction Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) allowed the writ petitions and directed the writ petitioner to appear before the respondent-authority and to seek for reassessment. The order passed by this court reads as under: "Hence, petitions are allowed. It is for the petitioner to appear before the respondent-authority seeking for reassessment. The respondent-authority shall entertain the appeal after condoning the delay and pass orders in accordance with law, within one month thereafter." Pursuant to the direction given by this court, the assessment orders came to be passed on July 6, 2011 for the above-re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble orders thereon. A perusal of the impugned orders would clearly indicate that there was no such exercise undertaken by the assessing officer. The assessee/petitioner had filed a letter dated June 21, 2011 before the assessing officer enclosing the copies of the orders passed by this court and has contended the same is applicable to the facts on hand. The assessment orders (annexures Y, Z, A1 and A2) dated July 6, 2011 do not indicate about consideration of these judgments. There is no discussion as to how the said judgments are inapplicable to the petitioner's claim. It is for this precise reason this court had set aside the assessment orders passed earlier. Even now in the impugned orders no such exercise has been undertaken by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X