9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it would be only just and fair to direct the revenue to consider the prayer of the petitioner for rectification, when there is no dispute that they were entitled to full tax rebate by virtue of the decision in M.K.Agro Tech , supra. It would be a formality for the respondent to pass a rectification order and grant full tax rebate to the petitioner in terms of its prayer. The petitions are allowed. - Decided in favor of assessee. - WRIT PETITION Nos.49879-49926 OF 2015 (T-RES) - - - Dated:- 20-1-2016 - MR. ANAND BYRAREDDY, J. For The Petitioner : Shri G. Sarangan, Senior Advocate for Shri T.N.Keshavamurthy, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri S.V.Giri Kumar, Additional Government Advocate ORDER Heard the learned Senio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment orders under section 3 9(1) of the KVAT Act levying tax, penalty and interest. In doing so, the prescribed authority had allowed the partial input rebate as per Section 17 of the KVAT Act, on the value of inputs namely, rice bran, cotton seed, sunflower cake and soya seed used in the extraction of oil on the understanding of law that the petitioner is not eligible for full input tax rebate. 4. Subsequent to the filing of the returns, a division bench of this court has rendered its judgment in M.K.Agro Tech Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka, 2014(1 8) KLJ 1, to the effect that when an assessee is in the business of manufacture of only one product, namely, oil and which is liable to tax, merely because in the process of manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is a misconception on the part of the petitioner that they could file such a rectification application within a period of five years. Since the statute was clear even as on the date the claim was made and in the absence of any such claim, the petitioner now seeking to raise such a claim by hindsight, notwithstanding that it is only after the judgment was delivered by a division bench in M.K.Agro Tech, supra, in that, it has dawned on the petitioner that it could have made such an application, cannot be countenanced and seeks to contend that if any such benefit is given, the revenue would suffer serious loss. 6. By way of reply, the learned Senior Advocate would point out that it is unfair on the part of the revenue to contend that suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
