Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 1337 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxCompounding of tax - Section 8 of the KVAT Act - dealer in Gold - AO found that the highest turn over conceded by assessee which lead to the compounding allowed for the assessment year 2006-2007 was wrong - revision of assessment - Held that:- The Deputy Commissioner is competent to revise an assessment prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, no matter, such assessment is completed based on an erroneous compounding order passed by the officer in Form No.21A which was not cancelled or revised by the Deputy Commissioner. There is no dispute that the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 35 is within the time for revision of regular assessment passed by the assessing officer under Section 17(3). So much so, the Tribunal rightly rejected the assessee's challenge against the order of the Deputy Commissioner on the ground of limitation. Power of rectification provided under Section 66 of the KVAT Act - Held that:- Power of rectification provided under Section 66 of the KVATAct can be invoked only when apparent error is found on the face of the record. This, therefore, necessarily means that the error sought to be rectified is that committed by the assessing officer and is not an error on account of a wrong declaration made by the assessee - there are no substance in the contentions raised. Referring to the provisions of Section 25, counsel contended that the assessment under this Section has to be based only on turn over and that in a case of compounding the said power under Section 25 cannot be invoked - Held that:- This contention also cannot be accepted. We have already seen that the assessing officer has found that the compounding allowed was vitiated for the reason that the turn over based on which compounding was allowed as conceded by the assessee was wrong and hence compounding itself is erroneous. Once it is so found, the entire turn over of the assessee has to be treated as escaped turn over. In such a situation, the entire turn over has to be treated as escaped turn over available for assessment and if so the power under Section 25 can be invoked. The assessee had other legal contentions which were not considered by the Tribunal as according to the Tribunal the fundamental issue to be decided was if the assessing authority was within his powers to assess the dealer under Section 25. Once we uphold the competence of the assessing officer, we have to necessarily remit the cases back to Tribunal, with a direction to consider the other contentions raised by the assessee and to dispose of the appeals according to law - appeals are remitted to the Tribunal with a direction to consider the other contentions that are urged by the assessee. Revision allowed.
|