9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the petitioner's case, by the authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings, under Section 60, without having invoked the Revisional jurisdiction under Section 64(2) or the remedy of an appeal under Section 66 of the said Act ? Sec. 59(4) of the KVAT Act reads thus :- "59. Instructions to Subordinate Authorities: (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) xxx (4) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Commissioner may, on his own motion or on an application by a registered dealer liable to pay tax under the Act, if he considers it necessary or expedient so to do, for the purpose of maintaining uniformity in the work of assessments and collection of revenue, cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a representation made to it by any officer or otherwise, that an order passed by it was obtained by the applicant by fraud or mis-representation of facts, it may, by order, declare such order to be void ab initio and thereupon all the provisions of this Act shall apply to the applicant as if such order had never been made. (7) Subject to the provisions of Section 66, every order passed under this Section shall be final." 2. There is no dispute that under Section 60 of the KVAT Act, the authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings, for short 'Authority' was constituted by the Commissioner and in the petitioner's case a clarification over the rate of tax in respect of certain items of goods which the petitioner deals in, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT Act, if he considers it necessary, or expedient to do so for the purpose of maintaining uniformity in the work of assessment and collection of revenue, clarify the rate of tax payable under the KAVT Act in respect of the goods liable to tax and all officers and employees shall observe and follow such clarifications. 5. It is not the case of the Commissioner that petitioner made an application for issue of clarification under Subsection (4) of Section 59, obviously because the petitioner had obtained a clarification Annexure - C, from the 'authority', and therefore the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-revenue that the clarification impugned is based upon a request made by the petitioner is but a specious plea. 6. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nexure-A order dt.8.10.2012 may be made prospective from 24.05.2010 in view of the order dt. 24.05.2010 is yet another specious plea. Having opined that the clarification by order Annexure-A is illegal and one without jurisdiction, question of alternative plea does not arise. The petition is allowed. Order dt. 8.10.2012 Annexure-C of the Commissioner is quashed. Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the clarification Annexure-C of the Authority for Clarification and Advance Rulings. It is needless to state that in the light of Subsection (6) of Section 60, it is for the authority to initiate action if it thinks it is necessary and not for the Commissioner to initiate any such action. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
