9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the 'Act of 2003') is filed by the assessee-dealer challenging the Order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the respondent No.1 in a Revision Proceeding under Section 64(1) of the Act of 2003 in ADCOM/ZONE-II/APP-2/SMR/CR-06/2019- 20. 2. The assessee-dealer filed its returns for the tax period 2011-12 in Form VAT-100. Later, on 25.06.2016, the premises of the assessee-dealer was inspected by the Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement-42, South Zone, Bangalore. During the course of such proceedings, the inspecting authority observed that the assessee-dealer had not levied and collected the tax separately in the sales invoices as per Rule 3(2)(h) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, but had only bifurcated the cost of the goods and tax ele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the assessee-dealer is a tax compliant entity and that the books of accounts are in place and the transactions are genuine, the respondent No.3 could not have passed a reassessment order and disallow the deduction. In view of the above, the respondent No.2 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the respondent No.3 on 29.10.2018. 3. Later the respondent No.1 invoked suo motu revision proceedings under Section 64(1) of the Act of 2003 against the assessee-dealer on the ground that the respondent No.2 had not considered the decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Indian Rayon and Industries Limited, Bangalore vs. State of Karnataka in STRP No.241/2011 and STRP Nos.53-67/2012 where it was held that if a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014] and Lipton (India) Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(1973) 32 STC 194 (Mad)] and the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of M/s.Spencer and Company Limited vs. The State of Mysore [(1970) 26 STC 283]. The learned counsel contended that the respondent No.1 committed an error in relying upon the judgment in the case of M/s.Indian Rayon (supra) on facts. He also contended that the judgment in the case of Mahadevi Stores (supra) cannot be considered to be laying down a general proposition of law and that the observations made therein were based on the peculiar facts and circumstances contained therein. 6. Per contra, Sri Jeevan Neeralgi, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submitted that the appellant had failed to disclos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
