9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e - Held that:- in a situation where if the revenue were to be in the position of the assessee and if it was discovered that by virtue of the operation of law, the revenue was entitled to a certain amount from the dealers, it would have certainly turned the tables on the assessee and proceeding on that presumption. So, 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 Private Limited vs. State of Karnataka [2015 (1) TMI 854 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. Now, it would be a formality for the respondent to pass a rectification order and grant full tax rebate to the petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The said returns are deemed as accepted under section 38(1) of the KVAT Act. 3. The first respondent audited the books of account for the tax periods April 2008 to March 2009 and had passed reassessment orders under section 39(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, sunflower cake, groundnut cake and soya seeds purchased on payment of value added tax (VAT) and used in the extraction of oil on the understanding of law that the petitioner is not eligible for full input tax rebate, since it manufactured and sold taxable goods, namely, oil and exempted goods namely, de-oiled cake. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no second opinion, though the revenue has sought to challenge the same before the Apex Court and is pending consideration. 5. The learned Government Advocate, while justifying the order, would submit that the question of rectification would not arise and 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, that it has dawned on the petitioner that it could have made such an applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 (P.) Ltd. (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. The impugned orders are set aside with direction to the first respondent to redo the same and give the petitioner the benefit of the judgment in M.K. Agro Tech,supra. The respondent having challenged the judgment in M.K. Agro Tech, supra, before the Apex Court, there is no order of stay. Therefore, having regard to the law laid down by this court, the respondents are bou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
