9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tember 17, 2007 which was an application enabled by the observations made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore as per its order dated April 30, 2007 before whom the assessee-dealer had tried its chance by a like application under section 25A of the Act. The rectification application was filed in respect of an ex parte assessment order dated February 25, 2000 which was affirmed in the first appeal by the Joint Commissioner, suffered the same fate in the second appeal before the appellate Tribunal and was also unable to get over these orders as the dealer's revision petition S.T.R.P. No. 76 of 2005 was dismissed as per order dated December 7, 2005 passed by this court. With all these failed attempts, the matter should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is thereafter the assessee had gone through before the assessing authority with an application which came to be dismissed, etc., and has come up to this court now invoking jurisdiction of this court under section 23(1) of the Act. Submission of Sri Kamath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner-dealer is entitled to claim the benefit of section 25A of the Act for the simple reason that the merits of the claim of the petitioner had never been examined by any of the appellate authority and even by this court in the revision petition in the earlier round; that the assessment order had not been affirmed on the merits to attract the principles of merger, but the appeals, revisions have all been dismissed only on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n at the threshold without any examination. As notices had been issued to the respondents, Ms. Geetha Menon, the learned Additional Government Advocate has appeared for the respondents. We have given opportunity of hearing to the learned Additional Government Advocate. Submission of Ms. Geetha Menon, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State, is that the application under section 25A of the Act had in fact been filed beyond the period of limitation; that the provisions of sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act have no application to the statutory provision such as section 25A of the Act. We have examined the rival submissions. We find, in the first instance, that there was no scope for making an applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke is also not correct for the simple reason that if the authority assuming wrongly or incorrectly proceeded to determine the tax liability of the petitioner-dealer in terms of the provisions of section 8(2)(a) of the Act and though Sri Kamath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would vehemently urge that it was a clear case to which provisions of section 8(2)(b) of the Act apply that was not the subjectmatter for rectification, but is only subject-matter for appeal or revision and such an error of law could not have been sought for being rectified in an application under section 25A of the Act. We find the application under section 25A of the Act was clearly barred by limitation and neither section 5 nor section 14 of the Limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
