TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,19,98,100 was not the subject matter in the revision order passed by the third respondent on February 25, 2012. The second respondent in its order dated February 25, 2008 had remanded the case for reassessment with respect to the turnover of ₹ 9,19,98,100 and after remand there was no consequential order passed. For the first time, the consequential order was sought to be passed on March 15, 2012 which was appealed to the second respondent who rejected the submission that the assessment as barred on the ground of limitation by order dated March 19, 2013. In this case also in the counter-affidavit, there was no denial with respect to the impugned order having become time-barred. - with respect to the assessment year 200405 under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tract. The petitioner filed appeals before the second respondent and the second respondent by order dated February 26, 2008 partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter in part to the 1st respondent. In the said order, the contention with regard to turnover of ₹ 56,56,33,774 representing any transfer of right to use goods was rejected but the said turnover was exempted from tax on the alternative ground of same falling within section 5(2) of the CST Act as sale in the course of import. So far as turnover of ₹ 1,39,72,848 is concerned, the assessment was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the first respondent with the following observations: (a) Goods imported from outside the country and used for self consump ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. The petitioner received a notice dated October 16, 2008 from the third respondent whereunder third respondent proposed to revise the order of the second respondent dated February 26, 2008 with respect to turnover of ₹ 56,56,33,774 which was treated as a transaction under section 5(2) of the CST Act. In the said notice, there was no proposal to revise the orders of the second respondent so far as the turnover of ₹ 1,39,72,848 which was remanded to the first respondent with directions as set out in the preceding paragraphs. By order dated February 25, 2012 the third respondent reversed the decision of the second respondent with respect to turnover of ₹ 56,56,33,774 only and there was no mention about the turnover o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner had relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court reported in Murugan Cold Storage (P.) Ltd., Chittoor v. Commercial Tax Officer, Madanapalli, Chittoor District [2013] 59 VST 330 (AP); [2013] 56 APSTJ 61 whereunder it has been held that the limitation prescribed under section 24A of the APGST Act, 1957 is 3 years from the date of remand by the appellate or revisional authority. In the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court and in the facts of the case where it is virtually admitted that the impugned order dated March 19, 2013 is time-barred and as such is liable to be set aside. W.P. No. 15829 of 2013 relates to the assessment for the year 2005-2006 under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 with respect t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
