TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent No. 2 is correct or not. The respondent No. 2 as per the provisions of section 9 of the KVAT Act ought to have relooked as to whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record as mentioned by the appellant. He has failed to do so - the matter is remanded back and respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the request of the appellant and pass such orders in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand. - S.T.A. No. 100015 of 2015. - - - Dated:- 4-12-2020 - G. Narendar And M. I. Arun JJ. For the Appellant : Narayan G. Rasalkar For the Respondents : G. K. Hiregoudar , Government Advocate JUDGMENT M. I. ARUN J. - 1. Aggrieved by the order dated February 28, 2015, bearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd interest for the period 2005-06 from the appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Davangere Division, Davangere. The said appeal was allowed on the ground that the order of reassessment was time barred and the new amendment which permitted the reopening of the filing for the year 2005-06 is not applicable retrospectively in the instant case. 6. The first respondent exercising suo motu powers, took up the case of the appellant herein and set aside the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes upholding that the limitation in the light of the new amendment is extended up to eight years and the order passed by the second res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the limitation period to eight years to reassess the returns filed, retrospectively, has been upheld by this court and have relied upon the orders passed by this honourable court in W. P. No. 51802 of 2014 (CIF Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka) and connected matters, disposed on August 12, 2015 and STA No. 100018 of 2014 and connected matters disposed of on December 7, 2017 (Pushkar Dress Manufacturers v. State of Karnataka [2018] 50 GSTR 98 (Karn)). 10. The learned counsel for the appellant because of the above-mentioned decisions in the course of arguments gave up the challenge for the order of respondent No. 1 at annexure A to the writ petition as it pertains only to the issue of limitation in reopening the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er passed under the same provision of law under which the original order, the mistake in which was rectified, has been passed. 11. We find there is substance in the contention of the appellant. The impugned order at annexure A passed by the first respondent confine itself to validity of the order of reassessment on the ground that the authorities were not beyond the period of limitation in reopening and reassessing the returns filed by the appellant for the year 2005-06. It does not go into the actual calculations as to whether the taxes, interest and penalty demanded by the order of respondent No. 2 is correct or not. 12. Under the said circumstances, respondent No. 2 as per the provisions of section 9 of the KVAT Act ought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
