9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T We have heard Sri K.J.Kamath, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned HCGP for the respondent and perused the record. 2. This is a classic case of the officer ante-dating an order of revision only in order to overcome the limitation provided under Section 22A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the KST Act'). Before going to merits of the case, we would like t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was received in the office of the respondent on 08.04.2010. The limitation for passing an order on a suo moto revision under Section 22A of the KST Act is provided under Sub-section (4) of the said section, which is four years from the passing of the order sought to be revised. Such position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. What is noteworthy here is that the reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der is served on the assessee on 21.9.2011. There is an inordinate delay of 1 year 7 months. The learned Government Advocate to secure the records and submit when this order of 10.2.2010 was dispatched from the office of the Revisional Authority. Call next week." 5. In response thereto the original record has been placed before us at the time of hearing. From the record it is apparent that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being the position, we must deprecate the practice of the Officials in passing such ante-dated order and serving copies of the order after more than 1½ years of the date of the order. As such, on this ground alone the order dated 10.02.2010 passed by the respondent deserves to be quashed as the same has apparently been passed after the receipt of the reply of the assessee dated 08.04.2010, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
