9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te instead to the Revisional Authority. When vital aspects of the applicability of the clarification whether retrospectively or prospectively is not considered and the same is found to be sufficient by this Court for exercise of the discretion to remand the matter, the same as such it cannot be read that the Court has made any conclusive observation. Still, however, suffice it to observe that all rights and contentions of the parties before the Assessing Authority shall remain open. The impugned Order passed by the Assessing Authority and subsequent orders arising therefrom including that of the Revisional Authority are quashed and set aside with a further direction that the matters shall stand restored to the Assessing Authority for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ience] for the respective assessment period. On 26.12.2012 the Order was passed under Section 62[6] of the KVAT Act by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Appeals]-6 and under Section 9[2] of the CST Act, allowing the appeals filed by the Assessee wholly under the KVAT Act and partly allowed the appeals under the CST Act. 5. The matter was taken up in suo motu revision by the Commissioner and vide Order dated 29.05.2013, the Order dated 26.12.2012 passed by the First Appellate Authority is set aside and the reassessment made is restored. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals before this Court. 6. We have heard Mr. R.V. Prasad, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy, learned Government Pleader ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that a beneficial circular has to be applied retrospectively while oppressive circular has to be applied prospectively. Thus, when the circular is against the assessee, they have right to claim enforcement of the same prospectively. 8. If the facts of the present case are considered read with the clarification issued on 10.05.2010, the question of applicability of the aforesaid clarification whether prospective or retrospective was one of the vital aspects which was required to be considered. If the above referred clarification is considered as prospectively, the assessment for the period prior thereto may not have any legs to stand, but if applied retrospectively, may further be required to be examined. In the same manner, even if t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chances that the matter may be delayed. 11. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has not objected to any direction if issued to decide the matter within time bound programme. 12. Even otherwise also, we find that as the matter pertains from the assessment of the year 2008- 09 onwards, it would be just and proper to issue time bound direction to the Assessing Authority. 13. Learned Government Pleader for the Respondent-Revenue also contended that both parties should be at liberty to raise all contentions before the Assessing Authority or all questions should be kept open and the remand by this Court may not be construed that on any aspects including that of the questions of law, conclusive observations are made by this Court. 14. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
