9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment year 2006-07 would be repeated for the assessment year 2012-13. It is trite law that Section 69 of the KVAT Act can be invoked only with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. The phrase mistake apparent from the record cannot be enlarged to re-examine/re-analyze/re-visit the concluded issues based on the factual aspects, which were before the authority at the time of passing of the assessment order. The scope of the rectification of mistakes is limited. The request of the assessee to re-examine the individual transaction would not come within the ambit of error apparent on the face of the record. It is the subjective perception of the assessee. The First Appellate Authority has the co-extensive jurisdict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contention of the petitioner that reassessment proceedings under the KVAT Act and CST Act have been concluded for the periods 2006-07, 2007- 08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. For the periods 2007-08 to 2009-10, the claim of exemption made by the petitioner has been accepted by the respondent-Department and the re-assessment has been completed without creating any additional demand relating to sales in the course of import. However, for the period 2006-07, the petitioner s claim of exemption under Section 5[2] as sought, was disallowed and demand was created. On challenge made by the petitioner to the said re-assessment order, before the First Appellate Authority and further before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal [ KAT for short], the same came t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake apparent from the record and as such, the Assessing Officer was bound to allow the rectification application in order to examine the individual transactions. Non-consideration of the same has resulted in failure of justice. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. T.K. Vedamurthy, appearing for the revenue justifying the order and endorsement impugned would submit that each assessment year is different and distinct. Any order passed by the KAT relating to the assessment year 2006-07 would not have an effect in the present proceedings. Assessing Officer, on analyzing the documents, has passed the assessment order. Re-examining of the documents as requisitioned by the assessee would partake the character of review by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... analyze/re-visit the concluded issues based on the factual aspects, which were before the authority at the time of passing of the assessment order. The scope of the rectification of mistakes is limited. The request of the assessee to re-examine the individual transaction would not come within the ambit of error apparent on the face of the record. It is the subjective perception of the assessee. Direction issued by the KAT relating to the assessment year 2006-07 stands on a different footing and the same cannot be considered to be applicable to the present proceedings also. A complete mechanism is provided under the Act to examine the correctness of the order of the Assessing Officer. Ordinarily, the Assessing Officer becomes functus-officio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
