Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2020 (12) TMI 948

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er sub Section (1) is found to involve mistake apparent on record, the assessing authority shall afford an opportunity to the dealer to submit revised return or to rectify such mistake. Thus, it is evident that the provision for filing the revised return was in existence in the statute. It is trite law that once a revised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and to have been substituted by a fresh return for the purposes of assessment. Section 25-A of the Act deals with rectification of the mistake - Admittedly, in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the assessing authority passed an order taking into account the original return instead of revised return on 31.05.2006, 28.08.2006 and 31.08.2006. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). Since, all the revision petitions arise out of the same judgment passed by the tribunal and similar issues arise for consideration in all the petitions, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts leading to filing of these revision petitions briefly stated are that the petitioner is a dealer registered under the Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sales of computer and computer peripherals. The subject matter of STRP No.62/2014 is Assessment Year 2002-03, whereas, subject matter of the STRP No.69/2014 70/2014 is Assessment Year 2003-04. The subject m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssment Years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05, by orders dated 31.10.2007, 21.01.2008 and 05.01.2008 respectively. 4. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority by orders dated 09.07.2008, 10.07.2008 and 11.07.2008 passed in respect of Assessment Years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 partly allowed the appeal in relation to a very small question of statutory forms and dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner in relation to all other grounds including the ground of deemed acceptance of the applications for rectification. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal by an order dated 17.07.2013 dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioner a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cations filed by the petitioner could not have been entertained as the same would amount to indirectly revising the return in the absence of any provision in the Act. It is further submitted that the petitions do not involve any questions of law and the same stands concluded against the petitioner by findings of fact. It is also pointed out that none of the issues raised by the petitioner can be termed as questions of law and the tribunal by a reasoned and detailed order has decided against the petitioner and therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, in the case of the petitioner, the orders have been passed u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rns in Form No.4 on 12.04.2006, 19.08.2006 and 30.05.2006. Therefore, in view of second proviso to Section 25A of the Act, on expiry of sixty days, the revised return should have been deemed to have been accepted. However, after a period of sixty days, the adjudicating authority passed an order on 31.10.2007, 21.01.2008, and 05.01.2008, which were per se without jurisdiction. The aforesaid aspect of the matter was neither considered by first appellate authority nor by the tribunal. The tribunal has decided the question of law erroneously, which arose for its consideration. In view of preceding analysis, the orders of rectification dated 31.10.2007, 21.01.2008 and 05.01.2008 passed by the adjudicating authority, orders dated 09.07.2008, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates