9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014 dated 11.7.2014. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the case are as under: 3. Revision Petitioner is a Private Limited company registered under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, [hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" for short]. The Revision Petitioner has filed returns as per the said Act and the said Act stood then, the filing of the return was to be considered as deemed assessment. However, on 12.12.2009 Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit-41), Bengaluru, issued a notice in Form No.275 for Production of the books of accounts for the period from April 2005 to March 2009, which was complied by the Revision Petitioner on 19.12.2009. 4. Thereafter, a notice of tax period(s) from April 2005 to M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 2005 to August 2006 is not barred by limitation. On receipt of such notice in the said appeals, the revenue also filed Cross Appeals on 9.12.2011 which were numbered as Cross Appeal Nos.1433-1445/2014 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal challenging the order passed by the FAA dated 25.2.2011 upholding majority of the contentions raised by the assessee. 7. The Tribunal by order dated 11.7.2014, dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee and allowed the cross appeals. For ready reference, the said order is extracted hereunder: "1) The appeals bearing No. STA 768 to 780/2011 are dismissed. 2) The cross appeals bearing No. 1433 to 1445/2014 are allowed in part. Consequently, the impugned appellate order is set aside. 3) The reasse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase as the conclusion reached on substantive issue of chargeability of tax under the Act has reached finality as no fault has been found with such conclusion? (d) Whether the impugned order is invalid to the extent that it remanded the matter to the ACA as the decision of FAA on substantive issues would remain unaltered ? (e) Whether the impugned order results in legal mess as the conclusion reached by the FAA will be binding on the ACA? (f) Whether the direction of remand given by the Tribunal is sustainable in law since all issues have been adjudicated in the detailed order passed by ACA as also by the learned FAA which therefore does not leave any scope for such an order of remand? Whether the impugned order indirectly conferred po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment proceedings for the period from April, 2005 to August, 2005 and relied on the consolidated order passed by ACA for the entire tax period? (m) Whether the Tribunal erred in giving the direction of remand to the ACA even when all relevant material was on record for the Tribunal to decide the issue itself and dispose of the appeals?" 10. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner assailing the impugned order re-iterated the questions raised in the Revision Petition and prayed for allowing the Revision Petition. 11. Per contra, learned counsel representing the Revenue vehemently contended that a co-ordinate bench of this court has upheld the validity of Section 39(1) of KVAT Act, whereby the amendment brought to the Karnata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.03.2006 which is held by the FAA is not barred by limitation and therefore, remitting the matter to AA afresh by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal without assigning any reasons of whatsoever to AA is error of jurisdiction and technically, the said order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal needs to be set aside. 17. The Revenue opposed the contentions of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 18. In this Revision Petition, the prayer of the Revision Petitioner reads as under: (i) Admit the instant petition to answer the questions of law set out in para 6 above; (ii) Set aside the impugned order at Annexure - 'A' passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A. Nos.768-780/2011 and Cross-appeal Nos.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s clear that Karnataka Appellate Tribunal has observed as under: "Therefore, without touching on the merits of the other issues raised in the cross appeals namely the third, fourth and fifty issue mentioned above, as the reassessment orders suffers from infirmity and done in gross violation of statutory rules, the same need not be answered by us. Xxxx" It is crystal clear from the above, that Karnataka Appellate Tribunal did not choose to consider the rival contentions of the parties on merits in respect of issue Nos.3 to 5 and has passed a omnibus remark that re-assessment orders is suffering from infirmity and done in gross violation of statutory rule. 23. It is settled principles of law that every decision is to be supported by re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
