9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3978/2019, dated 26th February, 2019. The appellant challenged Ext.P8 order of assessment finalized against him with respect to the year 2015 - 2016, in the said writ petition. The learned Single Judge had closed the writ petition by leaving liberty to the appellant to exhaust the statutory remedy available and by granting two weeks time to enable the appellant to approach the statutory appellate authority. 2. In W.P (C) No. 1129/2016 assessments finalized against the petitioner for the years 2010 - 2011 to 2013 - 2014 is under challenge. In W.P (C) No.4603/2016, the challenge is against an interim order passed by the revisional authority in the revision petitions filed challenging the order imposing penalty wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 'KVAT Act' for short) the articles included therein is to be taxed at 4% (subsequently increased to 5%). It is pointed out that entry 99 (2) of the said schedule is described as 'pipes and fittings thereof', for which the rate of tax mentioned is 4% (subsequently increased to 5%. It is pointed out that, under Section 6 (1) (a) of the KVAT Act the articles contained in the IInd and IIIrd schedule of the KVAT Act has be to taxed at the rates mentioned therein. Referring to Section 6 (1) (d) it is contended that with respect to any articles included in IInd and IIIrd schedule, the Government is not entitled to issue any notification prescribing any higher rate of tax than what is contained in those schedules. Hence the conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in W.P (C) No.4222/2015. Through judgment of this court dated 13-02- 2015, a learned Judge had held that, the issue of classification being a mixed question of law and fact it is incumbent upon the taxing authority to correctly determine the classification of the item, before arriving at a finding that the item in question is mis-classified by the assessee/dealer. Therefore the orders of penalty were set aside and the officer concerned was directed to consider and pass fresh orders in the matter after hearing the petitioner, based on the clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and on the basis of the judgment of this court and that of the hon'ble Supreme Court on the aspect of classification of goods under taxing st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. Such a dispute should be resolved by the statutory fact finding authority. 6. Subsequent to the judgment in W.A No.1544/2015 the petitioner preferred statutory revision petitions challenging the order imposing penalty with respect to years 2009-2010 to 2013-2014. The order impugned in W.P (C) No.4603/2016 is an interim order passed by the revisional authority in the above said revision petitions. In the judgment impugned in the Writ Appeal 786/2019 also, the learned Judge had found that merely because the petitioner may have a good case on merits, he shall not be permitted to knock on the doors of this court by ignoring the statutory remedies. It was found that the issue raised in the writ petition can be addressed eminently before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
