9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted by the first appellate authority also, though not by revisional authority. The matter deserves to be remitted back to the revisional authority namely, respondent herein - appeal allowed by way of remand. - SALES TAX APPEAL NO. 701/2011 - - - Dated:- 7-12-2018 - MR. ARAVIND KUMAR AND MR. P.G.M. PATIL JJ. APPELLANT: (BY SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) RESPONDENT: (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, HCGP) JUDGMENT ARAVIND KUMAR J., This appeal under Section 66(1) of the Act preferred by the assessee is against a suo-moto revisional proceedings initiated under Section 22-A(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short Act ), contending interalia that substantial question of law formulated in the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that appellant had made interstate purchases of goods for the purposes of use in execution of works contract and thereby had contravened Section 17(7) of the Act. 4. It is in this background, suo-moto revisional proceedings came to be initiated by the revisional authority in exercise of power vested under Section 22-A of the KST Act. Notice came to be issued to the appellant-assessee, which was said to have been duly acknowledged by the petitioner and yet petitioner is said to have not appeared before the revisional authority. Hence, order of the appellate authority came to be set aside and order of the assessing officer came to be restored. Hence, this appeal. 5. We have heard the arguments of Sri. Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ortunity requires to be granted to petitioner and accordingly, matter requires to be re-adjudicated by the revisional authority, particularly in the background of disputed question of facts having been raised by the appellant before this Court with regard to C form, which in fact had been accepted by the first appellate authority also, though not by revisional authority. 7. In that view of matter, impugned order requires to be set aside and matter deserves to be remitted back to the revisional authority namely, respondent herein. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER (1) Appeal is hereby allowed in part. (2) Order dated 29.03.2010 is hereby set aside and matter is remitted to respondent for adjudication afresh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
