9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C and F were not available while determining the taxable turnover. This determination of the taxable turnover vis-a-vis the statutory Forms submitted by the assessee on electronic portal on 01.01.2019 goes to the root of the matter. It is apparent that the Assessee indeed possessed the statutory Forms C and F, the genuineness of the same, if ascertained or verified by the Assessing Officer and found to be true and correct, the assessee is entitled to concession in the rate of tax/deduction in the rate of tax/benefit of branch transfer. Hence, it is incumbent upon the Assessing Authority to consider the rectification application filed by the petitioner at Annexures M and P and take a decision in the matter - this Court deems it app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 and it was directed to upload the same on the electronic portal. Accordingly, the said Forms were uploaded by the Assessee on 01.01.2019, but the respondent No.2 passed the order impugned on 29.12.2018 creating a huge demand of ₹ 25,57,39,936/- for the tax periods April 2013 to July 2013. 3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. N. Venkataraman, representing the learned counsel on record for the petitioner would submit that the files relating to the tax periods August 2013 to March 2014 are pending before the Assessing Authority at Mysuru in view of the scheme of demerger arrangement. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the order impugned suffers from the vice of arbitrariness as no sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Act. Hence, writ petition deserves to be rejected relegating the assessee to avail the appellate remedy available under the Act. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the statutory Forms C and F were uploaded only on 01.01.2019 subsequent to passing of the reassessment order dated 29.12.2018. Hence, there is no substance in the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed dehorse the rectification application filed by the petitioner, which is nothing but a delay tactics designed by the petitioner to delay/avoid the payment of tax which is legally liable to pay and rightly demanded by the respondent No.2. 6. I have given my careful considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he rate of tax/deduction in the rate of tax/benefit of branch transfer. Hence, it is incumbent upon the Assessing Authority to consider the rectification application filed by the petitioner at Annexures M and P and take a decision in the matter. 8. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to consider the rectification application filed under Section 69(1) of the KVAT Act at Annexures M and P to the writ petition and take a decision in the matter in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner rather than acceding to the request of transferring the file to the Assessing Officer at Mysuru. 9. The request of the learned Senior Counsel to transfer the proceedings to the Assessing Officer at Mysuru app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
