TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny relief or not. - Matter remanded back to tribunal. - STA NO. 46/2014 AND STA Nos. 47-57/2014 C/W STRP Nos. 239-250/2014 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2016 - MR. JAYANT PATEL AND MR. B.SREENIVASE GOWDA JJ. APPELLANT BY: SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE AND SRI. G. RABINATHAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS BY: SRI. T.K. VEDAMURTHY, AGA J U D G M E N T As all matters are inter-connected, they are being considered simultaneously. 2. The appellant/petitioner shall be addressed as the assessee, whereas the respondents authorities shall be addressed as Revenue for the sake of convenience. 3. The short case of the appellants appears to be that on 30th July, 2007, the impugned order was passed by the DCCT(Audit) for accepting the monthly r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside the order of the Joint Commissioner in revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 63 and further directed the audit authority to issue notice under Sec. 39(1) and make reassessments for all the tax period. On 30th January, 2010, the Deputy Commissioner (Assessing Authority) , issued notices under Sec. 39(2) of the Act for all the tax periods and called upon the petitioner to produce books of accounts. The Deputy Commissioner instead of passing reassessment order after verification of the books of accounts and the documents, made a demand of tax vide order dt. 28-06-2010 for the tax period April, 2005 to March, 2006. The assessee against the aforesaid demand of tax, preferred appeal before the first appellate authority i.e. the Joint Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eby the appeals preferred by the assessee came to be dismissed, without going into the merits and the order of the first appellate authority was set aside and further a direction was given to the assessing officer to give effect to the order of the additional commissioner dated 20-01-2010. 8. We have heard Mr. G.Rabinathan, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner assessee and Mr. T.K.Vedamurthy, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 9. As all sales tax revision petitions are arising from the last order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for brevity), we find it appropriate to consider the said group at the first stage. 10. The perusal of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same viz., to examine the legality and validity of the order passed by the first appellate authority so far as it related to the relief already granted in favour of the appellant. 2. The jurisdiction of the first appellate authority a s such, was not under challenge in the appeal preferred by the appellant but rather it can be said that the error on the part of the first appellate authority in not granting the relief was the only subject matter of the appeals before the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal lost sight of the important aspect that even after the order of the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in exercise of the revisional power (which is subject matter of STA Nos.46/2014 and 47-57/2014), when the assessment was to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diction of the first appellate authority and has further set a side the order of the first appellate authority including that for the reliefs which were already granted by the first appellate authority in favour of the petitioner-appellant, inspite of the fact that there were no cross-object ions or no appeal preferred by the respondent-Department. Not only that, but the Tribunal maintained the proceedings initiated by the Presiding Officer ie., assessing authority for giving effect to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 20.01.2010. In our view, if the scope of appeal preferred by the petitioner-appellant is considered as limited to the grievance raised by the petitioner-appellant so far as not granting the relief by the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the reliefs which were already granted by the first appellate authority in favour of the appellant for which there was no grievance to be granted or not. 12. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the Tribunal has clearly exceeded the jurisdiction in setting aside the order by the first appellate authority an d further whether to sustain the proceedings of the assessing authority/PA was also not the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal but rather the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal was as to whether the petitioner-appellant was entitled to an y relief or not. 13. Hence, by making further observations in the operative portion, one may say that the Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction. In view of the afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
