9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be decided only on an elaborate consideration into the merits of the issue. In that respect, we perfectly agree with the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge that the orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice or contravention of the provisions. All the contentions raised herein above can be effectively agitated in a properly constituted Revision Petitions filed under Section 59 of the KVAT Act - the intra-court appeal filed is upheld. If the appellant prefers a statutory Revision Petition before the Commissioner, the same shall be entertained by the said authority. If any delay condonation application is filed along with the Revision Petition, the time spent by the petitioner in prosec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 59 of the Act is available, before the Commissioner. Being confronted with such situation, the writ petitioner sought time before the Single Judge to move before the Revisional Authority and the learned Single Judge had shown indulgence in directing to keep in abeyance the recovery steps based on the impugned orders, for a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, so as to enable the appellant to move before the Revisional Authority. It is aggrieved by the said judgment, the above appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, the assessments pertain to the years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, which were originally finalised through Exts.P6 and P7 orders of the assessing authority, pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to learned counsel for the appellant, all the above aspects which were pointed out before the Ist respondent, through the objections raised, were not properly adverted to or considered by the Ist respondent. 5. We heard learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. All the above said strenuous arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, cannot be taken as a persuading factor for this court to reverse the impugned judgment of the Single Judge. We notice that, against Exts.P1 and P2 orders, the appellant has got an effective statutory remedy as provided under Section 59 of the KVAT Act, before the Commissioner. Question whether the product of the appellant will fall under entry 36 in accordance with Rule 23 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
