9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . If that be the case, the provisions of Section 25 (1) of the KVAT Act does not permit the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh order for the same assessment year. If such course of action is permitted, it would result in contradictory orders being passed without the original order being set aside or modified in a manner known to law. In such circumstances, there are no hesitation to hold that the second assessment order (Ext. P3) dated 29.03.2021 is non-est in law and cannot be sustained. Therefore, in that view of the matter, it is not necessary to consider the question as to whether the prayer to recall the earlier assessment order dated 15.12.2018 was maintainable under Section 66 of the KVAT Act. The petitioner is not entitled to any r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of Ext. P3 order. That application of the petitioner has been rejected by Ext. P7 order dated 29.8.2022 wherein it is stated that the assessment of the petitioner for the year 2015-2016 was originally completed by Ext. P2 order on the basis of certain observations by the internal audit team. It is stated that, unfortunately, the original assessment file got misplaced and without noticing the fact that the assessment had already been completed, a fresh assessment order came to be issued under Section 25 (1) of the KVAT Act (Ext. P3). It is also stated in Ext. P7, that the petitioner also did not bring to the notice of the officer who issued Ext. P3 that the assessment had already been completed by passing Ext. P2 order. It was held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit on instructions that, it is clear from Ext. P7 order itself that the second order (Ext. P3) for the year 2015-2016 came to be issued only on account of a mistake and without noticing the fact that the assessment for that year had already been completed by Ext. P2 order. It is pointed out that it can be seen from Ext. P7 order that the petitioner also failed to bring to the notice of the officer that an earlier assessment had been completed for the year 2015-2016. It is submitted that the petitioner also did not file any appeal against Ext. P2 order. It is submitted that the wording of the provisions of Section 66 of the KVAT Act would clearly show that the prayer of the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s.22.39 lakhs. 7. In the light of the above findings, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs as sought for in the writ petition. The writ petition will stand dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner wishes to avail the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme, that is currently in force, it will be open to the petitioner to do so. 8. However, there is yet another aspect in the matter. The facts of the case reveal that though the petitioner did not file any appeal against Ext. P2 order, for reasons already noticed, a second order came to be issued on 29.3.2021 where the demand raised on the petitioner was only a sum of Rs. 40,912/- together with interest, in the place of a demand of Rs. 74,45,653.00/- along with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
