TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich appeals were preferred before the Tribunal and the same came to be dismissed on merits on 25.10.2017. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, these revision petitions are filed. The assessee now raising the ground of defective service of the assessment order on the assessee has no relevancy for adjudicating the revision petitions filed against the orders of the Tribunal impugned - question of law framed to the extent of defective notice is wholly untenable and deserves to be rejected. Retirement of the partners Sri. K.M. Nagaraj and N. Manjunath, though noticed by the Assessing Authority - HELD THAT:- The retiring partners Sri. K.M. Nagaraj and Sri. N. Manjunath are required to be considered as necessary parties for proceeding with the assessment founds foul of the well settled principles of law since the assessment could be proceeded with, anyone of the partner of the firm, the same being not the execution proceedings i.e., recovery proceedings. It is also significant to notice from the original records placed by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the revenue that Mr. N. Ajith has addressed a letter dated 29.07.2009 to the DCCT Recov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to the assessment years 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 respectively. 2. These petitions have been admitted by this Court to consider the following questions of law:- IN STRP Nos.151/2018, 152/2018 154/2018 Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that, there is a proper service of notice/order as per 53 of the KST Rules? IN STRP No.153/2018 1. WHETHER, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that, there is a proper service of notice/order as per 53 of the KST Rules? 2. WHETHER, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that, the petitioner is not eligible for the deduction of tax collected for the period 1995-96? 3. WHETHER, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Daughter after the marriage is falls under the definition of his family as per 53 of the KST Rules? 4. WHETHER, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remanding the case? 5. WHETHER, on the facts and circumstances of the case, after death of one of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... created the additional demand. 4. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the assessee preferred statutory appeals before the First Appellate Authority unsuccessfully. On further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in STA No.188/2012 relating to the assessment year 1992- 93 and partly allowed STA Nos.189/2012, 190/2012 and 191/2012 relating to assessment years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 holding that the assessment orders passed in the name of the Sri. N. Ajith as partner are valid. The matters were remanded to the Assessing Authority relating to the assessment years, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 for the limited purpose of recomputing the tax levying 45% of the tax on the sale of Beer as per notification and to issue revised demand notice. Being aggrieved, the assessee has preferred these revision petitions raising the questions of law as aforesaid. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the assessee are of three fold. Firstly, service of assessment orders was made on Smt. Mamatha, D/o. Sri. D. Nemirajaiah, who is not the adult member of his (assessee s) family. Secondly, the dispute raised regarding the partners i.e., the retirement of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rried daughter continues to be family member. What is relevant is the service of the assessment order dated 27.05.2010. Even as per clause (c) of Rule 53 of the KST Rules, if the assessment orders are sent to the assessee by registered post on the address of such dealer/assessee/licensing authority known to the assessing officer or licensing authority, that would be suffice for the due service of notice/order on the assessee. Moreover, the alleged defective service of assessment orders would not prejudice the rights of the assessee for the reason that First Appeals were preferred on 08.11.2010 against the said assessment orders dated 27.05.2010 well within the period of limitation. The First Appellate Authority has considered the matter on merits and dismissed the appeals on 29.11.2011, against which appeals were preferred before the Tribunal and the same came to be dismissed on merits on 25.10.2017. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, these revision petitions are filed. 8. The assessee now raising the ground of defective service of the assessment order on the assessee has no relevancy for adjudicating the revision petitions filed against the orders of the Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n proceedings i.e., recovery proceedings. 12. It is also significant to notice from the original records placed by the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the revenue that Mr. N. Ajith has addressed a letter dated 29.07.2009 to the DCCT Recovery, requesting the said authority (Assessing Authority) to send all the correspondences in future to his brother s place Sri. N. Amith as he was not capable of handling the matter and thereby he has authorized his brother Sri. N. Amith to show the accounts and receive the notice/correspondences from the assessing authority. This letter was received on the same day by the assessing authority i.e., on 29.07.2009. This would clarify that no objections were raised by Sri. N. Ajith before the Assessing Authority regarding the defective service of notice or disputing the partnership deed dated 01.04.1992, as now canvassed by the learned counsel for the assessee. Re. Point No.3 13. The third point is, the authorities have failed to allow the deductions claimed with respect to the tax collected and paid. As regards the third point, the Tribunal has categorically observed as under: 33. Point No.3: As per the records t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
