TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention in para 6.1 of the impugned order. The assessee has pleaded before the KAT that the KVAT authority was relying solely on the show cause notice issued by the DRI Authority in a different set of proceedings under different legislation - Unless an authority vested with a power to impose tax and the KVAT authorities in this case, have had sufficient material based on its own investigation, proposition and confirmation of such proposed tax would be untenable in law. It is not in dispute that reliance has been placed on the show cause notice issued by the DRI authorities and the said ground has been noticed by the KAT. In our view, the KAT was required to return a finding on the said ground. It is assessee s specific case that the U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rification of documents without deciding whether the transaction is taxable in the first place? 3. Whether the Hon ble Tribunal was correct in ignoring the question of whether best judgment under the KVAT Act can be concluded based on the show cause notice issued by the DRI under a different enactment and proceedings? 4. Whether the Hon ble Tribunal was correct in ignoring the question of whether the proceedings initiated under the Customs Act can form basis for levying tax under the sales tax law when the taxable events under both enactments are entirely different? 5. Whether the Hon ble Tribunal was correct in ignoring the question of whether the levy of CST is legal and valid in the absence of any independent enquiry/in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition notice dated 19.02.2011 demanding sales tax of Rs.2,45,47,369/-. Assessee submitted its reply and an order under Section 39(2) of the KVAT Act [Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003.] was passed on 10.03.2011 confirming the demand. The First Appellate Authority by common order dated 28.02.2014 set-aside the VAT and sales tax on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not brought any evidence on record to prove that the goods were sold within Karnataka or outside. It also observed that the disallowed export sales return could be eligible for taxation under CST Act [The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956] . Based on the said observation, the Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte reassessment order dated 30.01.2015 rectifying the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order, the KAT has remitted the matter to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard. Assessee has all the opportunity to place its case before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned order. 9. Shri. Neeralgi further submitted that it was argued on behalf of the assessee before the KAT seeking a remand and the same is recorded in paras No.10 and 15 of the impugned order. Therefore, challenging the remand order is not tenable. 10. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 11. No doubt the impugned order is a remand order but the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing fresh re-as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
