9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... faced by the assessees. - order of assessment was passed totally ignoring the Circular of the Commissioner, inasmuch as, for the months of February and March 2006, which were within the period of limitation of six months, the Assessing Officer rejected the revised returns filed by the assessee, which could not have been done so. - No reason to interfere with the order passed - Decided against Revenue. - Writ Appeal No. 4900/2011, Writ Appeal Nos. 17699-709/2011(T-Res) - - - Dated:- 22-4-2015 - Vinnet Saran And S. Sujatha, JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri K M Shivayogiswamy, AGA For the Respondent : Smt Vani H, Adv. ORDER We have heard Sri K.M.Shivayogiswamy, learned AGA for the appellants and Ms.Vani H., learned Counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 31 which we are reproducing below: 25. Rule 39 of VAT Rules provides for taking action by the concerned officer on an apparently incomplete and incorrect return submitted. The rationale behind Section 35(4) of the VAT Act and Rule 39 of the VAT Rules is only to lessen the imperfections. The errors cannot be left uncorrected and the returns cannot be left in the incomplete state. Viewed in this perspective, the Commissioner's order is laudable; the order cannot be held to be illegal or inconsistent with the provisions of the VAT Act or the Rules framed thereunder. If it were illegal, it would have been withdrawn by the Department. 26. Yet another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of is that by filing the revised re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitigated or relaxed the rigour of the law. 30. The respondent No.1 ought not to have passed the impugned order in defiance of the Commissioner's circular. There is not even a cursory reference to the circular. The order thus suffers from the nonconsideration of the relevant material. 31. Not entertaining the revised returns for the month of February and March 2006, even they were filed within the prescribed period of limitation, is reflective of the non-application of mind on the part of the respondent No.1. 6. After making the said observations, the learned Single Judge has quashed the assessment order and the consequential demand notice and remanded the matter to the Assessing Authority for considering the petitioner's ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
