9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18. In terms of Ext. P2 order, there was a demand for an amount of Rs. 74,45,653.00/- (inclusive of interest of Rs. 18,47,418/-). Surprisingly, yet another order, which is on record as Ext. P3 dated 29.03.2021 was issued for the same year (2015-16) under Section 25 (1) of the KVAT Act where the demand on the petitioner was only a sum of Rs. 40,912.00/-. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner opted to settle the demand on the basis of Ext. P3 order by making an application under the Amnesty Scheme of 2021 as also under the Amnesty Scheme of 2022. Since the applications filed by the petitioner for getting the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme of 2021 and 2022 were not considered, the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 application for rectificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that it is in such circumstances that a fresh assessment was completed under the provisions of Section 25 (1) of the KVAT Act and on verification of the documents and records produced by the petitioner, the assessment of the petitioner was completed resulting in a demand for Rs. 40,912/- (including interest). It is submitted that in such circumstances, it was open to the petitioner to apply for an amnesty in terms of the provisions contained in the Amnesty Schemes of 2021 and 2022. It is submitted that the petitioner was also entitled to maintain an application under Section 66 of the KVAT Act for recalling or setting aside Ext. P2 assessment order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The learned counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, I have 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. 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that since there is a amnesty scheme now in force, it is open to the petitioner to file an applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessment namely (Ext. P3) is non-est in law, also taking into consideration the observations in Ext. P7 order, I am of the view that the petitioner can be permitted to file an appeal against Ext. P2 order if he is so aggrieved, provided such appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If such an appeal is filed within the time as aforesaid the first Appellate Authority under the KVAT Act shall consider the appeal as one as filed in time and shall dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law after affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioner. The Appellate Authority shall endeavor to dispose of the appeal, within a period of three months from the date of which it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
