9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsider the regular Assessment Order and to consider the protective order in light of the regular Assessment Order. The revisional authority could not proceed at a tangent and deviate from the directions issued by this Court. The remand was a limited remand to the revisional authority to look into the regular assessment for the purpose of revision and its effect in accordance with law. The protective Assessment Order and the reassessment order were passed in different fields in different spheres. In the circumstances, the revisional authority by order dated 10.11.2014 was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes on 31.12.2013 and remanding the matter to the said authority for de nova proceedings under Section 64(1) of the KVAT Act. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - SALES TAX APPEAL No.100001 OF 2015 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2019 - MRS. B.V. NAGARATHNA AND MR. BELLUNKE A.S. JJ. APPELLANT (By Sri. M.N. SHANKARAGOWDA ADV. AND SRI.H.R. KAMBIYAVAR ADV.) RESPONDENT (By SMT. VEENA HEGDE, AGA) JUDGMENT NAGARATHNA J., This appeal assai ls order No. KVAT/SMR/CR- 6/14-15 dated 10.11.2014 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant had preferred STA No.501/2010 before this Court, which remanded the matter to the revisional authority to dispose off the revision in accordance with law. 7. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid appeal, Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes through its counsel had addressed arguments. On 31.12.2013, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in SMR.No.ADCOM/Z-2/SMR/KVAT/BGM/CR-08/2013-14 passed an order dropping the suo motu proceedings on the ground that the order of final assessment had been passed under Section 39 of the KVAT Act dated 17.10.2007 and that the said proceedings had been barred by limitation, as under Section 64(3) of KVAT Act, such a proceeding could not be initiated. However, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued notice dated 09.06.2014 under Section 64(2) of the KVAT Act proposing to revise the revisional order dated 31.12.2013. The appellant filed a detailed reply to the same. 8. On hearing the appellant, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by order dated 10.11.2014 in No.KVAT/SMR/CR-06/2014-15 confirmed the proposals made in the notice dated 09.06.2014 by setting aside the revisional order dated 31.12.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dly, when the matter has been remanded by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes could not have held that the revisional proceedings under Section 64(1) of the KVAT Act was not initiated within a period of four years from the date of passing of the regular Assessment Order dated 17.10.2007 and therefore, the said proceeding was time barred. 14. It is emphasized that what had to be considered by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was as per the direction issued by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on remand of the matter. The direction was not to initiate revisional proceedings with regard to a regular Assessment being made. Therefore, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, by the impugned order dated 10.11.2014 passed under Section 64(2) of the KVAT Act, has rightly set aside the order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and remanded the matter to him for de nova proceedings under Section 64(1) of the KVAT Act in the light of the observations made in his order. 15. Further, this Court had observed that the revisional authority to reconsider the entire matter afresh in accordance w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Venkateswara Co.] (iii) Jaipur Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Ajmer, [1979] 44 STC 456; [Jaipur Udyog Ltd.] 17. In the case of Shri Om Parkash Seth, it was held that proceedings for fresh assessment taken by an assessing authority in pursuance of the directions made by the Commissioner while disposing of a revision petition under 21(1) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, setting aside the order of assessment and ordering the assessing authority to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law are governed by the period of l imitation prescribed in sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of section 11 or section 11-A of the Act. It is open to the Commissioner to redetermine the quantum of turnover liable to tax while exercising revisional powers but once he decides to direct the assessing authority to make a reassessment in accordance with law, the proceedings for reassessment would be fresh proceedings governed by the period of l imitation prescribed in Section 11-A. The facts of this case are distinct from the facts in the instant case as narrated in detail above. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the present case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the assessment cannot be taken up beyond the period of limitation. The same would not apply to the present case as what is being considered in the present case is not reassessment but revision of protective assessment order already concluded for the period from 01.04.2006 to 30.11.2000, which was a subject matter of appeal, revision and further appeal before this Court. This Court remanded the case for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Therefore, the point on l imitation does not arise at all in this case. 22. We find no infirmity in the impugned order at Annexure A . Accordingly, we answer the substantial question of law against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. There is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is hence dismissed. 23. Since the parties are represented by their respective counsel, they are now directed to appear before the concerned Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Zone)-II, Bengaluru, on 25.02.2019 at 03.00 p.m. without expecting any separate notices from the said authority. It is needless to observe that the said authority shall dispose off the Revision under Section 64(1) of the Act in accordance with law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
