9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vision petition directed against the judgment dated January 18, 2022 in STAs No.436/2015, 437/2015 and 438/2015 passed by the KAT [Karnataka Appellate Tribunal] has been admitted to consider following questions raised by the appellant in the Memorandum of appeal. 1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in remanding the matter for fresh consideration without considering the substantial questions of law before it? 2. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in remanding the matter limited to the verification of documents without deciding whether the transaction is taxable in the first place? 3. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in ignoring the question of whether best judgment under the KVAT Act can be concluded based on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found defective and they were returned to the petitioner between 2005 and 2007. 4. On 23.07.2010, DRI [Directorate of Revenue Intelligence] issued a notice under the Customs Act stating inter alia that petitioner was not entitled to claim benefit of customs duty as there were no records to show re-export of repaired units between 2005 and 2007. The said show cause notice is yet to be adjudicated. 5. The KVAT Authorities visited petitioner's manufacturing unit and issued a proposition notice dated 19.02.2011 demanding sales tax of Rs.2,45,47,369/-. Assessee submitted its reply and an order under Section 39(2) of the KVAT Act [Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.] was passed on 10.03.2011 confirming the demand. The First Appellate Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding on this fundamental issue. He submitted that notice issued by the DRI is pending adjudication. Therefore, there was no finality with regard to the allegations leveled by the DRI. The KVAT authorities have not made any investigation nor have any material to substantiate their claim. Therefore, the impugned order without recording a finding on the said issue is not sustainable in law. 8. Shri. Neeralgi, learned AGA, opposing the petition submitted that by the impugned order, the KAT has remitted the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard. Assessee has all the opportunity to place its case before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, no interference is called for with the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... als)] had rectified the original reassessment order and demanded CST. Thus, the KVAT authorities had initially demanded KVAT and based on the observations of the FAA had changed it to a demand for CST. 13. It is assessee's specific case that the UPS machines exported abroad were imported without any consideration for the purpose of repair and refurbishing. According to the assessee, after repair, machines have been exported. Therefore, there needs to be an appropriate adjudication not only with regard to the factual matrix, but also on the questions of law. In the circumstances, in our considered view, KAT was duty bound to return its findings on the main ground urged on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, following: ORDER (a) Revision Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
