9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt orders passed earlier. Even now in the impugned orders no such exercise has been undertaken by the assessing officer. In that view of the matter, the assessment orders dated July 6, 2011, annexures Y, Z, A1 and A2, cannot be sustained particularly in the background of the direction issued by this court earlier [2011 (2) TMI 1348 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] (Dayananda Extraction Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) and the same is liable to be quashed and matter requires to be remitted back to the assessing officer to pass assessment orders afresh. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Writ Petition Nos. 50979-50982 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 27-5-2013 - ARAVIND KUMAR, J. M.V. Seshachala for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessment year 2002-03 and on June 7, 2006 for the assessment year 2003-04 by holding that residue of rice bran and soya bean seeds and oil cakes after extraction of oil is also exigible to sales tax as it came to be treated as different commodity. Rectification applications were filed by the petitioner by relying upon various circulars issued by the Departments and the judgments of this court on the issue contending that once original product has suffered tax, its residue cannot be taxed once again. The said applications for rectification came to be rejected by order dated October 22, 2008 (for the assessment year 2000-01), November 19, 2008 (for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04) and re-rectification orders on No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgments relied upon by the assessee filed along with his letter dated June 21, 2011 has not been discussed in the assessment order passed on July 6, 2011. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that rice bran has already been subjected to tax and rice bran and oil being one and the same commodity as held in W.P. No. 25722 of 1998 and several judgments passed by this court, the assessing officer ought to have taken note of these judgments into consideration and the same not having been taken into consideration and mechanically order having been passed, the petitioner had approached this court on the earlier occasion in W.P. Nos. 7617-7620 of 2011 (Dayananda Extraction Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Taxes) and the same is liable to be quashed and matter requires to be remitted back to the assessing officer to pass assessment orders afresh. Hence, following order: (i) Writ petitions are hereby allowed. (ii) Assessment orders dated July 6, 2011 passed by first respondent at annexures Y, Z, A1 and A2 are hereby set aside. (iii) Matter is remitted back to the first respondent for passing assessment orders afresh. (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the assessing officer on June 10, 2013 without waiting for any further notice from the first respondent. (v) The assessing officer-first respondent shall examine the issue afresh without being influenced by any of the observations made earlier and pass orders by taking into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
