9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be set aside on the ground of limitation alone. As already observed, the jurisdiction/competency of the assessing authority to exercise the powers under Section 25-A of the Act is not pressed. The orders impugned passed by respondent No.1 under Section 25A of the Act are quashed - petition allowed. - WRIT PETITION Nos.23150 & 23294 – 23295/2018 c/w W.P.Nos.23151 & 23289 – 23292/2018 AND W.P.Nos.23153 & 23559 – 23562/2018 (T - KST) - - - Dated:- 11-7-2019 - MRS. S. SUJATHA J. PETITIONER: [BY SRI T.N. KESHAVAMURTHY, ADV.] RESPONDENTS: [BY SRI T.K. VEDAMURTHY, AGA.) O R D E R These petitions involving similar and akin issues, have been considered together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner has challenged the rectification orders dated 31.3.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 25A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 relating to assessment years 1989-90 and 1991-92 to 2002-2003. 3. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ( Act for short). The petitioner is engaged in the business of processing and supplying of photographs, photo prints and phot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainbow Colour Lab case does not appear to be correct. In view of the said decision, the Commissioner issued instructions to the Sales Tax Authorities vide Circular No.17/03 dated 27.9.2002 stating that the earlier decision in Rainbow Colour Lab has been impliedly overruled in ACC Limited and the Authorities under the Act are bound by the Apex Court decision in ACC Limited and accordingly directed the Authorities to levy tax under Entry 25 of Sixth Schedule in respect of transfer of property of goods involved in the execution of works contract undertaken by the photographers. On the said instructions, the Authorities subjected the turnover of transfer of property in goods involved in the processing, supplying of photographs and photos to tax under Section 5-B read with Entry 25 of the Sixth Schedule. Proceedings under Sections 12-A, 21 and 25A were initiated to bring the said transaction to tax. Being aggrieved by the same, assessees had preferred writ petitions before this Court. The said batch of writ petitions were heard with the lead case, Golden Colour Lab Studio reported in (2004) 134 STC page 570 . This Court declared that the decision in Keshoram Surindranath Photo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing tax exemption setting aside the tax levied. Again, the assessing officer passed second rectification orders, rectifying the rectified orders and levied tax under Entry 25 of Sixth Schedule in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pro Lab and Others supra, dated 30.01.2015. The details of the action initiated by the Assessing Authority are as under: WP NO: ASST.YR DATE of assessment Order 1 ST 25A ORDER 2 ND 25A NOTICE 2 ND 25A ORDER TAX 23150/18-C 1989-90 24.02.1993 03.10.2008 21.10.2017 31.03.2018 1,52,965 23294/18-C 1991-92 29.05.1993 23.05.2008 -DO- -DO- 5,55,061 23295/18-C 1992-93 18.03.1997 -DO- -DO- -DO- 87,532 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -DO- -DO- 5,42,129 23562/18 -12[2] 2002-03 27.05.2006 -DO- -DO- 10,17,242 32,92,726 ALL TOTAL: 64,33,369 10. The orders passed under Section 25-A of the Act pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pro Lab s (supra), are impugned herein mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the order under Section 25-A of the Act are passed beyond the period of limitation. Secondly, the Assessing Authority had no jurisdiction to pass orders under Section 25-A of the Act in view of the change in the tax regime and the re-designation of the officers from KST/KVAT to GST regime. 11. Learned counsel Sri. T.N. Keshavamurthy appearing for the petitioner argued that period of limitation prescribed under Section 25-A of the Act is five years from the date of an order passed. Indisputably, the orders impugned her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 14. The main controversy relates to the period of limitation in passing the orders under Section 25-A of Sixth Schedule to the Act pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pro Lab s case. Section 25-A of the Act reads thus: 25-A. Rectification of mistakes. [1] With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, the assessing authority, appellate authority or revising authority, may, at any time, within five years from the date of an order passed by it, amend such order: 15. This provision makes it clear that the Assessing Authority [for the purpose of the present cases], is empowered to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, at any time, within a period of five years from the date of the order passed by the said authority. Indisputably, all the impugned orders herein are passed beyond the period of five years from the date of the original assessment order/original rectification order. This Hon ble Court in the case of Mysore Cements Limited, supra, had the occasion to consider Section 25-A of the Act inasmuch as rectification of mistakes. Afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
