9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n For The Respondent : Sri. V. K. Shamsudheen JUDGMENT Petitioner is a dealer in arecanut registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (the CST Act). They are engaged in the sale of arecanut to registered dealers outside the State on interstate sales basis against C-Forms. The first respondent completed the assessment of the petitioner under the CST Act for the year 2014-15 in terms of its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the CST Act confers suo motu power of revision to the Deputy Commissioner only under Section 6A of the Act dealing with transfer of goods otherwise than by way of sale. 4. It is seen that the suo motu power under Section 56 of the KVAT Act has been exercised by the second respondent in the inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax law of the State; and the provisions of such law, including provisions relating to returns, provisional assessment, advance payment of tax, registration of the transferee of any business, imposition of the tax liability of a person carrying on business on the transferee of, or successor to such business, transfer of liability of any firm or Hindu undivided family to pay tax in the event of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the CST Act. It is seen that similar contention raised in the context of the suo motu power under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (KGST Act) in respect of an assessment made under the CST Act has been considered by this Court in TRC No.116 of 2000 and connected cases. In the common order passed in the said cases, it was found by a Division Bench of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of the Act. In order to bring to tax the escaped turnover, the revisional authority has exercised his powers under section 35 of the Act, 1963 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd ([1998] 108 STC 583). Therefore, we are of the opinion, firstly the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was justified in invoking his rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
