9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r ties the matters are taken up for final disposal. 2. As in all appeals, common questions arise for consideration, they are being considered simultaneously. We may record that since the respective assessment period differ, separate matters are numbered. Otherwise, the issues involved are common and can be considered by common decision. 3. The short facts of the case appears to be that the appellant herein filed return under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as 'KVAT Act', for short] beyond the period of six months showing the additional tax liability of Rs. 5,02,09, 566/-. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes passed an order for re-assessment under Section 39[2] of the KVAT Act and the tax was de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ths from the end of the relevant tax period is liable to be rejected. However, if such revised return indicates any additional tax liability, then in such a case, the return filed should be accepted with any payment made and re-assessment proceedings should be got initiated through the jurisdictional JC- DVO." 7. We may, at the outset, record that so far as binding effect of the Circular is concerned, learned Counsel for the Appellant did assert and the learned Government Advocate for the Revenue has not been ab le to dispute the binding effect of the circular. 8. It further transpires that the Revisional Authority considered that the circular refers to the additional tax liability of tax and it does not ref er to any credit of input ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the impugned order that in the case of ' M/s. INFINITE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS AND CENTUM INDUSTRIES BANGALORE Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, ZONE-II, BANGALORE' , the observations were made otherwise for the credit of the input tax and therefore the claim made by the assessee of input t ax cannot be accepted when the revised return is filed beyond the period of six months. 11. We may first refer to the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of 'FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE [INDIA] LIMITED Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX [AUDIT] 52, BANGALORE AND OTHERS' reported in [(2011) 42 VST 439 (KARN)]. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that the Commissioner's circular is absolutely sust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction as the said return was not related to the tax period during which the input tax was paid." 14. This Court further found that the Tribunal did not consider the said aspect and ultimately set aside the Order of the Tribunal. The distinguishing aspect which deserves to be taken note of is that it was n ot matter of input credit to be reflected in the return of the tax period during which input tax was paid. Since the amount relating to input tax was to be decided in the respective period, the Court made observation there to. As such, in the said decision, this Court did not find that even if the input tax credit is claimed for the respective tax period for which the return has been filed resulting into additional tax liability, then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the Judgment of this Court.
18. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that based on the order of the Revisional Authority, the demand notice has been issued and therefore when we have quashed the order passed by the Revisional Authority, any consequential order based on the order of the Revisional Authority would also no more survive for consideration. Hence, the appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the f acts and circumstances, no order as to costs.
19. I.A. No.2/2016 would not survive for consideration in view of final disposal of the appe als.
Hence, IA No.2/2016 shall stand disposed of. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
