9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KVAT Act' for the sake of convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant is a registered dealer under the provisions of the KVAT Act engaged in the business of buying and selling of oil seeds, oil and oil cake. For the period from 01.04.2006 to 30.11.2006, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Int.), North Zone, Sadashivanagar, Belagavi, on the basis of the information gathered and by visiting the appellant's premises, passed a protective Assessment Order on 15.03.2007 under Section 38(5) of the KVAT Act for the period. By the said order, the input tax claimed by the appellant was withdrawn on the premises that the two suppliers, namely M/s. SVS Enterprises and M/s. SR Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred STA No.501/2010 before this Court, which remanded the matter to the revisional authority to dispose off the revision in accordance with law. 7. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid appeal, Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes through its counsel had addressed arguments. On 31.12.2013, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in SMR.No.ADCOM/Z-2/SMR/KVAT/BGM/CR-08/2013-14 passed an order dropping the suo motu proceedings on the ground that the order of final assessment had been passed under Section 39 of the KVAT Act dated 17.10.2007 and that the said proceedings had been barred by limitation, as under Section 64(3) of KVAT Act, such a proceeding could not be initiated. However, Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reiteration. What emerges from the facts and contentions of learned counsel for the respective parties is that by judgment dated 31.10.2012 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in STA No.501 of 2010, the matter was remanded to the revisional authority to reconsider the entire matter afresh in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the effect of the matter of Regular Assessment passed under Section 38(1)(a) of KVAT Act on 17.10.2007 (Annexure 'G'). 12. On remand, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes by order dated 31.12.2013, has held that the proceedings taken up in respect of final Assessment Order being quashed under Section 38(1)(a) of KVAT Act, the protective Assessment Order and first appellate order in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d remanded the matter to him for de nova proceedings under Section 64(1) of the KVAT Act in the light of the observations made in his order. 15. Further, this Court had observed that the revisional authority to reconsider the entire matter afresh in accordance with law, which means that the revisional authority had to consider the regular Assessment Order and to consider the protective order in light of the regular Assessment Order. The revisional authority could not proceed at a tangent and deviate from the directions issued by this Court. The remand was a limited remand to the revisional authority to look into the regular assessment for the purpose of revision and its effect in accordance with law. Further, assessment under Section 38(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter to the said authority for de nova proceedings under Section 64(1) of the KVAT Act. 16. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments: (i) The Assessing Authority, Amritsar and Another Vs. Shri Om Parkash Seth, [1969] 24 STC 282; [Shri Om Parkash Seth] (ii) Venkateswara & Co. Vs. Deputy Commercial Taxes Officer, [2003] 133 STC 606; [Venkateswara & Co.] (iii) Jaipur Udyog Ltd. Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Ajmer, [1979] 44 STC 456; [Jaipur Udyog Ltd.] 17. In the case of Shri Om Parkash Seth, it was held that proceedings for fresh assessment taken by an assessing authority in pursuance of the directions made by the Commissioner while disposing of a revision pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 16 of the Act. This proposition squarely comes into play and militates against the impugned notice. The order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot extend the period of l imitation. The respondent cannot be clothed with jurisdiction to exercise the power of revision under section 16 of the Act beyond time, merely because the Appel late Assistant Commissioner chose to direct him to issue a fresh notice. 19. In the case of Jaipur Udyog Limited, it was held that the service of a valid notice within the period of l imitation is a condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction for assessment under Section 12 of the Act considered therein, namely Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. If the assessing authority failed to issue a notice which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
