9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings or calling for the records under the Act. It may be noticed, on the face of it, that the order has been passed beyond the period of one year and therefore, respondent No. 1 was acting without jurisdiction. The learned Additional Government Advocate would not dispute this position. Therefore, on that short point, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. If the authorities, under the Act, have the power to revise the order and make amendments, if any illegality is found in the order, it would be open for the authorities to exercise power conferred under the Act, if it is so permitted. Therefore, there is no prejudice caused to the revenue by this order. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The impugned order bearing No. JCCT(Adm)/DVO-1/SMR/CR-09/2014-15, T.No. 2886/14-15 dated 21.2.2015 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Admn), DVO-1, Bangalore, is quashed. The order directing refund of amount in favour of the petitioner remains in tact." 2. The facts to be noted from the record are, the respondent is a dealer registered under the then provisions of the then Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('the Act' for short). The Assessing Officer attache ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er passed by the Revisional Authority before the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petitions, which came to be allowed. Submissions: 7. The submission of Sri. Aditya Vikram Bhat, learned AGA for the appellants is that, the very object of initiating suo motu revision by the Joint Commissioner is that the respondent-assessee is illegally collecting higher rate of tax contrary to entry No.4 to VI Schedule, even though the respondent is not permitted under law or collecting higher rate of tax from its customer collected and not remitted to the State Treasury. It is his submission that, the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge that the revisional proceedings were initiated on 11.03.2013 and final order came to be passed on 21.02.2015 is untenable for the reason that the endorsement dated 11.03.2013 is entirely different as that was in respect of refund. According to him, the actual revisional proceedings commenced when he received a letter from LVO-20 on 21.04.2014 and issued a revisional notice under Section 63-A of the Act on 11.07.2014, pursuant to a decision taken in the file on 25.04.2014 and the order came to be concluded on 21.02.2015. Therefore, the revisional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O-20 to refund the excess tax amount, the respondent has made specific contention with regard to inclusion of tax made by the dealer in the sale price, if any, does not amount to collection of excess tax by the dealer from his customers, by relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Vigilance) -Vs.-M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. (Lipton Division) [2007 (62) Kar.L.J. 257 (HC) (DB)]. 12. According to him, the respondent has also stated in the said letter that if excess collection of tax at 8.5% is in contravention of Section 47 of the Act, the Audit Officer would have definitely forfeited the amount under Section 47 of the Act. On the basis of the respondent's letter dated 06.09.2012 and with an intention to initiate suo motu revision proceedings and to pass order under Section 47 of the Act, the appellants have perused the audit orders and the corresponding records and came to conclusion that it is necessary to verify the copies of agreements, works orders and sales invoices/RA Bills in respect of the respondent's business transactions in order to ascertain the legality of the audit orders passed and accordingly, issued an endorse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he time period of one year or not and nothing more. We have reproduced the relevant facts which are required to be taken into consideration while deciding the issue which fell for consideration. The impugned order does not reflect the facts as highlighted by us in this order. In other words, the impugned order does not reflect the aforesaid facts having been considered by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. Having said that, it is to be seen that, on the basis of the facts narrated above, the order dated 21.02.2015 was within the period of one year from the date of initiation of proceedings or calling for the records under Section 63-A of the Act. 15. The conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge is that, the order was passed beyond one year and therefore, the appellant No. 1 was acting without jurisdiction. What is sought to be urged by the respondent is that the limitation of one year would start from 11.03.2013, which is the date of endorsement after the perusal of audit orders and as such, the date of institution of suo motu proceedings. Whereas, the case of the appellants is, the date of 11.03.2013 follows the fact that on 21.08.2012, the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of Agreements, Work Orders and Sales Invoices/R A Bills, in respect of the dealer's business transactions, are to be verified, in order to ascertain the legality of the audit orders passed and the refund claim thereon. Hence, the dealer is instructed to furnish the aforesaid details, at the earliest." 16. So, what has been considered by the Joint Commissioner in terms of endorsement dated 11.03.2013 was, the issue of refund to the respondent-assessee. In the meantime, a writ petition was filed by the respondent-assessee before this Court which was finally decided on 11.07.2014, whereby direction was issued by this Court to refund the amount of Rs. 1,06,89,301/- along with interest at 6% p.a. in accordance with Section 50 of the Act within a period of two weeks to the respondent. It is necessary to state here, this Court while deciding the writ petition, had made an observation with regard to the fact that the reason that revisional orders are awaited from the Commissioner of Commercial Tax is not a relevant ground or reason to withhold the refund, particularly when it is not shown that the Commissioner of Commercial Tax has already initiated revisional proceedings under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
