9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion whatsoever on the issue of limitation. Also the respondent is also unable to show any discussion dealing with the point of limitation, the only submission was that as per the principles of doctrine of merger, the limitation period should not operate as a bar to the revisional authority in exercise of the power. Hence, it was required for the respondent to examine and deal with the point of limitation which was expressly raised by the appellant. The aforesaid aspects of limitation, would be one of the vital aspects and it would completely change the basis of the order, in the event the point of limitation is accepted. - Matter remanded back - STA No. 1/2016, STA Nos. 89-99/2016 - - - Dated:- 3-3-2016 - Jayant Patel And B. V. Nagarath ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08.2015. It appears thereafter the opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant and on 14.09.2015 the impugned order was passed by the revisional authority. Under the circumstances, the present appeals before this Court. 7. We have heard Mr.Harish V.S., learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Shivayogiswamy, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the respondent. 8. Leaving aside the other aspects, one of the vital aspects is that the appellant in reply to the notice under Section 64(1) of the KVAT Act, raised the point of limitation at paragraph-16 of the reply. The same for ready reference is reproduced as under: 16. Without prejudicial to the above submissions we further submit that, in our case the Assessing Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AA has allowed the appeal vide VAT AP No.673 to 684/10-11 dated 06.01.2012. As the issue raised in the revision proceedings was not before the FAA, the doctrine of the merger cannot be made applicable, therefore the limitation of four years for revision starts from the date of order passed by the Assessing Authority i.e., 29-05- 2010, which ends on 28-05-2014, since, proceedings initiated is barred by limitation, therefore the same should be dropped. 17. In support of this we rely on the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Lingeshwar and Company Vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (1998) 110 STC 346 (Kar) held that, it is competent on the part of the Additional Commissioner and Commissioner to invoke the suo motu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal vide order dated 17-09- 1965. Revised order was issued on 12-12-1967. Subsequently Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercising SMR powers U/s.20(2) of the AP Act vide order dated 12-09- 1969 revised the order of the Assistant Commissioner stating that tax to be levied at 1.25% U/s. 5-A of the AP Act, and not 1%. HELD that, the order of the Assistant Commissioner was in relation to an assessment but as the question of additional tax of 0.25% under Section 5-A was not raised in appeal, the doctrine of merger of assessment order with the appellate order had no application to the case. Since the Deputy Commissioner's order was beyond four years from 29-03-1965 on which date the assessment order dated 15-03-1965, was served on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S-NO MERGER OF ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED MARCH 19, 1991 WITH ORDER PASSED AFTER REMANDREASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1997 TO BRING TO TAX ITEMS NOT SUBJECT-MATTER OF APPEAL 12 BARRED BY LIMITATION MADHYA PRADESH GENERAL SALES TAX ACT, 1958 (2 OF 1959), S.19(1). 22. In Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax VAT-I, Mumbai Vs Kirloskar Oil Engine Limited [2011] 46 VST 538 (Bom) held that, dismissing the application, that the judgment delivered by the first appellate authority on June 30, 2000 was on a limited challenge by the dealer only on the award of interest and penalty by the assessing officer in the order of assessment dated March 31, 1999. The rest of the order of assessment was not in challenge before the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, in case the above submissions are not sufficient for substantiating our view. When the aforesaid reply submitted on behalf of the appellant is reproduced, the above referred paragraph- 16 raising the point of limitation is also reproduced. 10. We are emphasizing on the aforesaid aspects in order to take cognizance of the fact that the respondent was fully conscious about the point of limitation taken by the appellant in response to the show cause notice. However, in the reasoning recorded by the respondent while passing the impugned order, there is no discussion whatsoever on the issue of limitation. 11. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent is also unable to show any discussion dealing with the point of limitation. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
