9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The petitioner was engaged in powdering and selling of red chilly, coriander, turmeric, etc., which does not involve any manufacturing activity. However, in the original assessment for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 the petitioner claimed exemption which was granted by the assessing officer. Both the assessments were completed on June 27, 2001. However, the assessing officer later noticed that exemption was wrongly granted and therefore he revised the assessments under section 19(1) of the Act withdrawing the sales tax exemption wrongly granted and bringing to tax escaped turnover. The petitioner filed writ petition challenging the validity of these revised assessments on the ground that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... survive after revised orders are issued by the assessing officer. We have gone through the judgment of this court and we notice that in that case the Deputy Commissioner had not gone into the correctness or otherwise of the revised orders issued by the assessing officer under section 19(1) of the KGST Act which was pending in appeal, at the time the Deputy Commissioner initiated and completed proceedings under section 35(1) of the KGST Act. In this case also the counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the facts are similar inasmuch as, instead of filing appeal against the revised assessments under section 19(1) of the KGST Act, the petitioner had challenged the correctness of the revised assessment through writ petition which is still ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urviving order after the declaration of the invalidity of the revised order of the Deputy Commissioner. It is the settled position that the powers conferred on the assessing officer under section 19(1) and powers of the Deputy Commissioner under section 35 are for the very same purpose of preventing escapement of assessment of any turnover or otherwise to prevent evasion of tax. It would be wrong to hold that the higher authority forfeited his right to revise an assessment order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction vested in him merely because the original authority made an ineffective attempt to correct the mistake. There is no dispute that the Deputy Commissioner has authority under section 35 to revise even a revised assessment issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
