9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y commenced by a Notice u/s.39(2) of the KVAT Act, 2003 on 04.11.2012. 2. The Respondent-Assessing Authority in the impugned Endorsement has assigned the reasons that for the same tax period April-2006 to March-2007 against the originally passed Re-assessment Order on 04.11.2012, the first appeal came to be dismissed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-4 on 27.12.2012 and the second appeal by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal-KAT was dismissed on 31.07.2017. However, since the said KAT had earlier granted a Stay Order on 23.01.2013 staying the operation of the said Re-assessment order, only after dismissal of the second appeal by the KAT on 31.07.2017, the Respondent-Assessing Authority seeks now to take up again such Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he stay order in the pending Appeal No. STA 162/2013 before Tribunal did not pertain to the aforesaid two issues on which the Re-assessment notice u/s.39 of the Act issued on 04.03.2013, therefore the stay order dated 23.01.2013 of the KAT (vide P.282 of the paper book) could not operate to exclude the period of limitation as per Section 40(3) of the Act. 7. Learned AGA for the Revenue Mr. T.K. Vedamurthy however, supported the said impugned Endorsement and urged before the Court that in view of the stay order and pendency of the appeal before the learned Tribunal, the operation of the Re-assessment order earlier passed on 04.01.2012 was stayed by the learned KAT and therefore the Assessing Authority could not proceed with the furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ues namely, warranty replacement of spares and parts of computers/laptops and catering provided to the employees in factory or industrial concern of the petitioner-assessee, but, since Section 40(3) of the Act excludes the period of stay against the assessment order or other proceedings by the Appellate Authority, the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee before this Court first deserve s to be determined by the Departmental authorities themselves. 9. The overlapping proceedings of Re- assessment envisaged u/s.39(2) of the Act, whether it can be dissected for the purpose of Section 40(3) of the Act or not is a mixed question of facts of law. What is effect of the stay order granted by the Tribunal on 23.01.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
