TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be countenanced. This Court is not adjudicating upon the order of the Appellate Authorities in this writ petition - petition is bereft of any merits and is dismissed. - WRIT PETITION No.13509/2019 (T – RES) - - - Dated:- 4-4-2019 - MRS. S. SUJATHA J. Petitioner (By Sri Atul K. Alur, Adv.) Respondents (By Sri T.K. Vedamurthy, AGA.) O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the endorsement dated 10.10.2018 issued by the respondent No.3 at Annexure-M to the writ petition, whereby it is informed that the request of the petitioner for rectification of the assessment order dated 26.05.2004 relating to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DCCT, Assessment 12, Bengaluru submitting that the dealer company has become sick industry as declared by the BIFR during the proceedings under Sick Industrial Companies Act [SICA] and accordingly requested to accept the declaration for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 and to arrive at the actual liability to make the claim before the BIFR authority in accordance with law. Subsequently, again the petitioner through its learned counsel submitted a reminder to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru on 01.08.2018 requesting the Commissioner to direct the Assessing Authority to consider the application dated 11.06.2009 to accept the declaration and to arrive at the actual tax liability. On considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II V/s. West Bengal Infrastructure Dev. Fin. Corpn Ltd., reported in 2010 [279] E.L.T. 3 [S.C]. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the order of the assessment dated 26.05.2004 being challenged before the Appellate Forums and now being seized of by this Court in STRP.Nos.290 291/2018 addressing the grievance of the petitioner on the representation dated 11.06.2009 would not be justifiable. The learned Additional Government Advocate justifying the impugned endorsement at Annexure-M submitted that no authorities are vested with the power to consider the statutory declaration forms at this length of time even invoking Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner is nothing but parallel proceedings which cannot be entertained. Moreover at every stage, there is delay ex-facie apparent from the records in the claim made. No satisfactory explanation is offered for consideration of the reminder/representation dated 11.01.2018 to consider the request of the petitioner dated 11.06.2009. The lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner is manifest. As per Section 25A of the KST Act, any mistake apparent from the record, the Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority or Revising Authority may, at any time, within five years from the date of the orders passed by it, amend such order. Even it is doubtful whether the claim of the petitioner comes within the ambit of Section 25A of the Act to rectify the mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
